On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:13:24 -0500, Celejar wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Camaleón wrote:
>
>> Mozilla products are memory/CPU hogs, yes. I hope newer versions can
>> correct that.
>
> I often wonder about this; IIRC, FF used to advertise itself as
> "lightweight". Does it still do that? Was it ever accurate?
I'm not in the best position to speak about Mozilla products because I
wouldn't be objective (still using old versions of both, Iceweasel
-3.0.x- and Icedove -2.x-) but true is that Mozilla products (Netscape
Navigator suite) has never been known by its good management of memory :-)
Is Firefox "lightweight"? Well, it has a small footprint in the system
(~10 MiB, which is not bad for what provides), but overall I'd say "no".
I've worked with konqueror (and now also Epiphany) and konqueror
performed a better job in many aspects, not only with memory management.
top - 00:18:38 up 16:27, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.03, 0.01
Tasks: 131 total, 3 running, 128 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 1.1%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 98.6%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 8201264k total, 1536164k used, 6665100k free, 54368k buffers
Swap: 2104472k total, 0k used, 2104472k free, 832752k cached
3369 sm01 20 0 548m 113m 25m S 0 1.4 3:19.36 liferea-bin
3466 sm01 20 0 624m 107m 28m S 0 1.3 2:52.77 icedove-bin
9712 sm01 20 0 558m 101m 24m S 0 1.3 0:19.99 firefox-bin
...
"200" MiB of ram for just 2 applications (mozilla based) is excessive. And
I only have 2 tabs opened :-/
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.11.19.23.21...@gmail.com
