Posted: Thu 26 Dec 2013, 17:33
erm ff 3.6 perhaps....Now if we just had a drop in replacement for FireFox that wasn't so bloated.
mike
mike
(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
READ-ONLY Archive
https://oldforum.puppylinux.com/
Firefox Plug-in Flash Help for Winded Old Junkers [Outdated]
Page 3 of 4
mike
Posted: Thu 26 Dec 2013, 18:35
I tried a few of the "retro" (FF) packages, and a large number of sites informed me that they would soon disallow connections with those "vulnerable" browsers...mikeb wrote:erm ff 3.6 perhaps....Now if we just had a drop in replacement for FireFox that wasn't so bloated.
mike
I had broken things so bad that I had to use Dillo to get new copies of FF (since I had pretty well corrupted stuff with the others)
Posted: Thu 26 Dec 2013, 19:05
well that very unsporting of them...I get the odd whine but no threats of that order...any site in particular?I tried a few of the "retro" (FF) packages, and a large number of sites informed me that they would soon disallow connections with those "vulnerable" browsers... Evil or Very Mad
But if it is a problem then spoofiing your version is easy with a simple addon like UAControl.
I can use firefox 1.5 and flash 9 on you tube by spoofing as an example with no whining..
Its all crap anyway..your browser choice does not affect their site...the browsers are safe in the real world...they are not Internet explorer....only real 'complaint' they will have is not supporting some 'orrible javascript that does naughty things to you....
Don't be bullied into sludgeland...
mike
Posted: Thu 26 Dec 2013, 20:38
None of my computers have more than 1 GB RAM. I never create or use a swap file or partition and I generally run Firefox. I've used various version up to and including the latest and don't experience any crashes - despite FF being bloated and watching Youtube fullscreen and also having many tabs open at the same time often.RetroTechGuy wrote: My old desktop "only" has 1 GB RAM -- FF will crash it, if I turn off the 1 GB Swap.
I can't help but wonder if you have a faulty RAM chip that causes the crash once certain RAM areas are accessed. I've had problems like that in the past.
Posted: Thu 26 Dec 2013, 23:04
I was going to mention essentially the same thing. On both a weak single-cored Atom netbook and a circa 2005 HP lappy - both with 1Gb RAM and no swap - various Puppies (currently Precise Retro 5.7.1) and other Linux distros run newer Firefoxes without complaint. Firefox typically uses an additional 150-200 Mb RAM when open, and additional CPU use is only a few percent unless scrolling (during which it spikes 40-100%).mcewanw wrote: None of my computers have more than 1 GB RAM. I never create or use a swap file or partition and I generally run Firefox. I've used various version up to and including the latest and don't experience any crashes - despite FF being bloated and watching Youtube fullscreen and also having many tabs open at the same time often.
Firefox IS relatively bloated compared to many other browsers, but it's a matter of "you get what you pay for". Firefox's stability, extensibility and tweakability (especially via about:config) are second to none IMHO - and these mediocre machines run it without hiccup. You just have to get used to waiting a few more seconds for it to load on opening, compared to other lighter alternatives.
Not sure why you're having such problems, RetroTechGuy.
Posted: Thu 26 Dec 2013, 23:06
yes I did wonder...my tests with firefox 4+ did show a much larger profile but ok in terms of usability on a pentium 3 machine with 512mb ram
Chrome is 4 times the size I last saw.... thats getting large at 80MB compressed.
mike
Chrome is 4 times the size I last saw.... thats getting large at 80MB compressed.
mike
Posted: Thu 26 Dec 2013, 23:12
I'm very skeptical about the stability - from what I can tell it is the least stable of the major linux browsers.Moat wrote:Firefox's stability, extensibility and tweakability (especially via about:config) are second to none IMHO
Posted: Thu 26 Dec 2013, 23:14
Every browser instability I have had has been traced down to a buggy gtk2 build and changing it sorts it out...bit of a puppy feature once upon a time...seems much better now..
mike
mike
Posted: Thu 26 Dec 2013, 23:22
Yes, I was ignoring the standard Puppy seamonkey crash due to a faulty GTK. I didn't realise it affected other browsers to though.
Posted: Thu 26 Dec 2013, 23:24
yes unfortunately ...either gtk or glib or both with flash sometimes thrown into the equation.... I don't miss those times 
mike
mike
Posted: Fri 27 Dec 2013, 00:08
dupe
Posted: Fri 27 Dec 2013, 00:08
I guess I should do a hardware scan. Though it doesn't seem like anything run into problem any other time (although, no other package exhibits a RAM load of a 8-900 MB -- I watch the RAM as I'm running it, and it bloats up until all RAM is loaded, and then sometimes rolls on into swap.)Moat wrote:I was going to mention essentially the same thing. On both a weak single-cored Atom netbook and a circa 2005 HP lappy - both with 1Gb RAM and no swap - various Puppies (currently Precise Retro 5.7.1) and other Linux distros run newer Firefoxes without complaint. Firefox typically uses an additional 150-200 Mb RAM when open, and additional CPU use is only a few percent unless scrolling (during which it spikes 40-100%).mcewanw wrote: None of my computers have more than 1 GB RAM. I never create or use a swap file or partition and I generally run Firefox. I've used various version up to and including the latest and don't experience any crashes - despite FF being bloated and watching Youtube fullscreen and also having many tabs open at the same time often.
Firefox IS relatively bloated compared to many other browsers, but it's a matter of "you get what you pay for". Firefox's stability, extensibility and tweakability (especially via about:config) are second to none IMHO - and these mediocre machines run it without hiccup. You just have to get used to waiting a few more seconds for it to load on opening, compared to other lighter alternatives.
Not sure why you're having such problems, RetroTechGuy.
Here's what my newer laptop shows (I have only FF and ROXterm running, beyond base system)
Code: Select all
total used free shared buffers
Mem: 3014600 1113960 1900640 0 31932
Swap: 0 0 0
Total: 3014600 1113960 1900640Posted: Fri 27 Dec 2013, 00:19
Edit: let me really "light up" Firefox. I opened about a dozen FB pages... I have 2 pieces of FF in "top". My total load is now about 1.7 GB, most of that in FF...
Of course, on my machine with 1GB RAM, this would completely flatten it...
Of course, on my machine with 1GB RAM, this would completely flatten it...
Posted: Fri 27 Dec 2013, 00:37
Hmm expected usage for me below...add say 150MB for heavy use and newer version.
Sounds more like a memory leak since usage is normally proportional to space available and should not hit max ...what addons do you have and does it happen with other firefox versions...? Any other pattern..particular sites?
mike
Sounds more like a memory leak since usage is normally proportional to space available and should not hit max ...what addons do you have and does it happen with other firefox versions...? Any other pattern..particular sites?
mike
Posted: Fri 27 Dec 2013, 01:16
From my aforementioned netbook, since upgraded to 2Gb RAM - FF v25.0.1, 9 tabs open, large file downloading in background -
(never uploaded a pic, so I'll see if this works...)
(never uploaded a pic, so I'll see if this works...)
Posted: Fri 27 Dec 2013, 01:29
This is FF 26.0. It looks like a memory leak of some sort... I think that this behavior started in the last few versions...mikeb wrote:Hmm expected usage for me below...add say 150MB for heavy use and newer version.
Sounds more like a memory leak since usage is normally proportional to space available and should not hit max ...what addons do you have and does it happen with other firefox versions...? Any other pattern..particular sites?
mike
(years ago, Netscape used to sometimes exhibit memory leaks, and crash the browser -- maybe the FF guys figured out how to incorporate that "feature")
I typically run AdBlockPlus, NoScript, DownLoadThemAll, DownloadHelper.
Posted: Fri 27 Dec 2013, 06:14
I'm apparently not alone. A number of people have reported 1.7GB RAM usage...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/quest ... 643?page=2
This article is interesting... A couple options that let you explore the usage:
http://lifehacker.com/find-out-which-ex ... 1339291204
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/quest ... 643?page=2
This article is interesting... A couple options that let you explore the usage:
http://lifehacker.com/find-out-which-ex ... 1339291204
Posted: Fri 27 Dec 2013, 12:03
yeah was going to suggest trying 'safemode'...ie all addons disabled...
Yes I remember netscape crashing on 98.... some said it was a MS trick but who knows... but someone on a forum suggested firefox which was at 0.6 then and it worked like a charm... so a long association has ensued..
mike
Yes I remember netscape crashing on 98.... some said it was a MS trick but who knows... but someone on a forum suggested firefox which was at 0.6 then and it worked like a charm... so a long association has ensued..
mike
Posted: Fri 27 Dec 2013, 14:44
Maybe the answer is to use the Firefox ESR series instead of the latest mainstream ones? I'm posting this from Firefox 17.0.11 (in Racy ER) and even with 3 tabs open including a youtube video playing, no flash blocking or other memory saving aids, and the ESR update downloading, Gkrellm shows just 200 MB of RAM in use. I think that's pretty impressive for a browser (and distro) in 2013.
Posted: Fri 27 Dec 2013, 18:35
I was running NyetScrape on Debian 1.3 at that time. That was the only program that I ever ran, which crashed the machine (it caused a reset/reboot). (I had a whopping 64MB RAM on that beast...)mikeb wrote:yeah was going to suggest trying 'safemode'...ie all addons disabled...
Yes I remember netscape crashing on 98.... some said it was a MS trick but who knows... but someone on a forum suggested firefox which was at 0.6 then and it worked like a charm... so a long association has ensued..
mike
I used the "lifehacker" suggestions to examine the memory. It apparently isn't any of the extensions. The main piece of FF is eating about half, and FF is apparently initiating a pile of java crap, which is eating the other half...
The good part is that the tool reports the same memory load that "top" does... Between the 2 pieces, it shows well over 1 GB (that's a problem for this desktop machine).
An interesting note... Using the FF memory usage widget, it reports that every Facebook tab uses between 20 and 25 MB... talk about being an absolute "pig"... Murga Puppy tabs are much smaller (but I thought still larger than they should be)
Oh, and I had recently "reset firefox", then uninstalled FF, and then reinstalled FF to wipe any residual crud that might be causing problems. Didn't seem to help -- the stuff being loaded is apparently default FF operation (which I suppose brings us to a question of compatibility with various bits of hardware -- maybe it needs that to compensate).
Maybe it's time to swap in that newer machine, with 2 GB RAM -- it has "XP Media Edition"
Now that I think about it, I upgraded the RAM in that machine for those folks, because their normal browser was reducing the machine to its knees (that was IE, not FF) -- they were having trouble reaching their email as a result. When I put FF on their machine, it worked "OK", whereas IE barely worked at all...
