Firefox 2, Anyone download it yet? |
![]() ![]() |
Firefox 2, Anyone download it yet? |
Nov 2 2006, 01:58 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
GH0STIN` lost my mind ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 113 Joined: Oct 2006 Member No: 469,983 |
In africa, we all use operha because she is our hero
|
|
|
|
Nov 2 2006, 05:43 PM
Post
#27
|
|
![]() Pokeball, GO! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,832 Joined: Jul 2006 Member No: 433,009 |
^ Please, don't spam. -_-'
Negative on that. The memory leak still exists. Mind explaining how you know that? Even if that is so, it seems like it's lessened a bit. The memory leak has never caused me problems. Even on FF 1.5. You'd only have to worry about it if your computer is ancient.
|
|
|
|
| *mipadi* |
Nov 2 2006, 06:19 PM
Post
#28
|
|
Guest |
Mind explaining how you know that? Even if that is so, it seems like it's lessened a bit. The memory leak has never caused me problems. Even on FF 1.5. You'd only have to worry about it if your computer is ancient. All you have to do is leave Firefox running for a few days to notice it, but a quick check of the 2.0 release notes, as well as a look at the Mozilla bug-tracking database, shows that it hasn't been fixed; if that's not enough, there are numerous bloggers who have noted the issue still exists. It's not really a big issue if you don't leave Firefox opened for days at a time (all memory is reclaimed by the operating system once the application exits), but it is present, and it happens, regardless of the age of the computer (such is the nature of memory leaks). Not trying to use it as reason to not use Firefox—it's a lot better than IE—but it's perplexing that the issue hasn't been fixed yet. |
|
|
|
Nov 2 2006, 06:57 PM
Post
#29
|
|
![]() Photoartist ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 12,363 Joined: Apr 2006 Member No: 399,390 |
really my xanga is freaked up so far. lol. its still the same. are there any add ons for that lol. Chyea I guess Firefox never really handled the coding on Xanga. My layout doesn't work for Firefox which I don't mind too much, but it'd be nice if it did. IE uses less ram than FF I don't think it was the amount of RAM it used. |
|
|
|
Nov 2 2006, 09:56 PM
Post
#30
|
|
![]() Pokeball, GO! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,832 Joined: Jul 2006 Member No: 433,009 |
All you have to do is leave Firefox running for a few days to notice it, but a quick check of the 2.0 release notes, as well as a look at the Mozilla bug-tracking database, shows that it hasn't been fixed; if that's not enough, there are numerous bloggers who have noted the issue still exists. It's not really a big issue if you don't leave Firefox opened for days at a time (all memory is reclaimed by the operating system once the application exits), but it is present, and it happens, regardless of the age of the computer (such is the nature of memory leaks). Not trying to use it as reason to not use Firefox—it's a lot better than IE—but it's perplexing that the issue hasn't been fixed yet. Ok, I know you weren't trying to put down FF. I was just curious is all. |
|
|
|
| *mipadi* |
Nov 2 2006, 10:21 PM
Post
#31
|
|
Guest |
Ok, I know you weren't trying to put down FF. I was just curious is all. Memory leaks occur when a program allocates memory for an object or struct, and fails to deallocate it when the object or struct is no longer in use. So evidently, Firefox allocates memory but fails to release it when it's no longer in use. |
|
|
|
Nov 2 2006, 11:59 PM
Post
#32
|
|
![]() Wow, i dont know whats going on... ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 1,439 Joined: Apr 2004 Member No: 10,977 |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2006, 08:21 AM
Post
#33
|
|
![]() Pokeball, GO! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,832 Joined: Jul 2006 Member No: 433,009 |
Memory leaks occur when a program allocates memory for an object or struct, and fails to deallocate it when the object or struct is no longer in use. So evidently, Firefox allocates memory but fails to release it when it's no longer in use. Ah, ok, that's what I thought but I was unsure if that was the case here. That is kind of odd that it hasn't been resolved yet. Maybe there's something more complicated to it. Thanks for the information. |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |