Firefox 3 Memory Usage

Stuart Parmenter, a Mozilla engineer, has some interesting news about memory usage in Firefox 3 Beta 4:

We’ve made more significant changes to the platform than I can count, including many to reduce our memory footprint. The result has been dramatic, and you can see for yourself by getting a copy of the recently released Firefox 3 Beta 4.

Here’s What We’ve Done:

Reduced Memory fragmentation
Fixed cycles with the Cycle collector
Tuned our caches
Adjusted how we store image data
Hunted down leaks

Our work has paid off.

We’re significantly smaller than previous versions of Firefox and other browsers. You can keep the browser open for much longer using much less memory. Extensions are much less likely to cause leaks. We’ve got automated tools in place to detect leaks that might result from new code. We’re always monitoring and testing to make sure we’re moving in the right direction. All of this has been done while dramatically improving performance.

So this is all very interesting, and you should read the full post for the details of how they did it. But even after just a few days of use, it's clear that Firefox 3 Beta 4 is using tons less memory than FF2. I used to leave FF2 on overnight and the thing would gobble up 300+ MB of RAM easily. I check it from time to time and it's usually in the 60-70 MB RAM range, a huge improvement.

If they can really put this behind them, I'd like to see the same dedication go towards making a high quality FF user experience. The new UI in FF3 is simply horrible, especially on Windows Vista. It shouldn't be this amateurish.

Discuss this Article 12

Cfischer83
on Mar 12, 2008
I was working on my Mac Pro with 5GB of ram and even while using it I noticed my system getting sluggish... when I opened the activity monitor, firefox (2) was taking up 2GB of ram by itself!! Of course some of that can be attributed to poor memory handling on the part of OS X, but still....
weedmonk
on Mar 12, 2008
"Of course some of that can be attributed to poor memory handling on the part of OS X, but still...." Blasphemy!
Lindy
on Mar 12, 2008
VISTA is simply horrible looking. Aero is a neon/cartoonish joke. What the heck is with the super thick borders on Vista. FF3 looks and runs great on XP and OS X.
Cfischer83
on Mar 12, 2008
Lindy, how do you REALLY feel about Vista? ;) .... really though, you should buy it and actually try it out for yourself, I'm sure you'd love it! @Weedmonk: Sorry, but it's true... I can't leave my Mac on over the weekend without it locking up due to memory leaks (no matter what's open)... that doesn't happen on Windows (unless of course you have some poorly written 3rd party app).
rseiler
on Mar 12, 2008
Paul, I still don't know why you're going on and on about simple icons in a (skinnable) browser. They look fine to me, and is that new back button not similar to Vista's own prominent circular Start button? Why yes, it is. And the menus are native seeming to me. According to the release notes, Beta 4 has "[Vista] native user interface widgets in the browser and in web forms." At least find something accurate to rail about.
boolean22
on Mar 13, 2008
The FF skin is not native at all, that's BS. The ORIGINAL leaks from the UI showed something more in the MediaPlayer 11 line, which was on par with the Photo Gallery and the Calendar in Vista. Why in heaven would they scrap something as good looking and functional? Why scrapping the chance of sticking it to MS by making their browser more akin to the Vista likes, where IE lacks a lot in the integration department (misplacing toolbars, etc.)? I just don't know, but as in Stairway To Heaven, «it makes me wonder»: Is this a «don't wanna play by tha rulez» and trying to be edgy kind of attitude? Or is this the kind of behaviour that always plagued the OSS Community in Windows, reinventing the wheel instead of coping with the UI guidelines?
befuson
on Mar 13, 2008
I've noticed no difference in memory handling between beta 3 and 4. And seiler, if they look "fine" to you, you need glasses. FF, at least in its current beta form, looks terrible, even on XP.
lilserenity
on Mar 13, 2008
I am happy to agree that whilst Firefox 3 is faster and leaner than 2, and functionally it's proving to be quite nice - the interface by default is not very inspired. I much prefer Firefox 2 skinned with a 'Vista' theme, it looks lovely. As I keep saying I use Windows, Mac OS X and Linux so I've got no allegiance one way or another. As a web developer IE 8 and Firefox 3 will be wonderful; but we'll still have the IE6 brigade... Either way, the Windows default skins need some serious effort put into them. The back and forward button 'thing' is just hideous. I'll continue to use Firefox, and won't switch to iE7 permanently on any of my computers or at work, but if it's released with the current Windows skins, I shall be off to find a replacement post haste! Unfortunately for many people the decision on which web browser to use is not what technically it can do, standards etc. but what it looks like. Firefox 3 looks uninspired on Windows.
daveinla
on Mar 13, 2008
CFisher: I don't know what kind of junk you run on your MacPro but it's the first time I hear someone complaining about the memory management on OSX. I have both a G4 macmini and a Macbook running 24/7 and rebooting maybe once a month for major updates and my macmini remains at roughly 512 MB free and 512 MB active/wired, and the macbook has always 1GB free out of my 2Gb installed with a 2nd user logged in !!! OSX has one of the finest kernel nowadays in terms of memory/threads management and I doubt it's the cause of your memory leaks...
DRWAM
on Mar 13, 2008
I share the same stable experience as DaveinLA on a G4 from 1999 as well as a Pro Tower from 2007.XP has been stable on my home machines, but not at work at all, but it is because of the installed 3rd party software [GE Centricity]. Don't get me wrong, I love Centricity, but we reboot a few times a day on any of many Workstations [all XP]. I hope that the server or Hospital info system is more stable as it is a dominant platform in the medical world, where Macs are insignificant. The medical world is becoming all digital and all Windows. Fortunately Windows servers allows Macs to enter the 'cloud'.
Cfischer83
on Mar 13, 2008
@daveinla and DRWAM: I'm glad you guys have had better experiences than me... we have another unused Mac Pro (all our mac systems run the latest updates of Tiger with minimum 5GB of ram btw) that I tried doing some of the same stuff on, and it's needed to be rebooted numerous times due to memory related problems... My boss is going to get me a Macbook Pro next month though. Perhaps less memory will mean less to manage.
DRWAM
on Mar 14, 2008
I have 4GB RAM in my Pro Tower [8 x 512MB] which has RAID 0 in two 250GB drives and two more 500GB drives for backup and Vista [which runs well on it]. The old G4 has a 1.25GHz CPU upgrade from OWC and 1.75GB RAM with three internal drives. I really should get rid of all the downloaded apps and updates that I will never use again. I backup my DVD movies too [after conversion to DIVX] and use both Macs and a PC for them. Good luck with the MBP. Our head IT guy converted to it. He prefers VMware to run his Windows apps on it, but I do not know if he uses Vista or XP with it. but I suspect that is XP as one needed app is so darn old that we are lucky that XP supports it. We intend on replacing it, but it will take a long time and a lot of money as it is dictation/transcription/report archiving app, for which we want it integrated with PACS and prehaps voice recognition.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use