Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Ram usage of Firefox with and without Adobe FLASH (flash:1,2gb ram):

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default Ram usage of Firefox with and without Adobe FLASH (flash:1,2gb ram):

    i test it! i close my Firefox with flash then i remove the flash file then i reopen the Firefox. and then i tage a screen-shot:



    with flash my Firefox uses more than 1200mb more RAM!!!!

    AND without flash the firefox is really FAST!

    and yes the picture do have wrong text its not without firefox its without flash.

  2. #2

    Default

    That's not really a fair comparison. Firefox memory usgage tends to grow after a lot of browsing. This would be more fair:

    * Close Firefox, with Flash installed, start Firefox, measure ram usage.
    * Close Firefox, remove Flash, start Firefox, measure ram usage.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    That's not really a fair comparison. Firefox memory usgage tends to grow after a lot of browsing. This would be more fair:

    * Close Firefox, with Flash installed, start Firefox, measure ram usage.
    * Close Firefox, remove Flash, start Firefox, measure ram usage.
    its only the picture and your paranoia. because: i browse now for hours without flash and the ram never goes up like this right now 2gb. with flash my ram usage is always 3-4gb!

    but hey i can make a screen-shot the other way around sure but its pointless it chances nothing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,645

    Default

    U often uses nspluginwrapper and a 32 bit plugin instead of a native 64 bit one.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    U often uses nspluginwrapper and a 32 bit plugin instead of a native 64 bit one.
    no this time i used the native 64bit file.

    but yes discrediting is more easy than taking care of the results.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,645

    Default

    U 10.10 did definitely use nspluginwrapper. Did they fix it for precise?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    U often uses nspluginwrapper and a 32 bit plugin instead of a native 64 bit one.
    If that were the case, then multiply the flash ram usage by 1.2 to account for 64-bit pointers

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    If that were the case, then multiply the flash ram usage by 1.2 to account for 64-bit pointers
    haha LOL sure! but i use the 64bit flash. means 1gb ram if i use the 32bit flash.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    If that were the case, then multiply the flash ram usage by 1.2 to account for 64-bit pointers
    I might just have to research for pointer compression. But of course that would be ineffective, if the implementation of such, used as much memory as it was supposed to save.

    20 percent isn't that sort of bad is it? Its just a 2. Come on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •