I'd recommend against it, I used to use Firefox, but when I downloaded the beta, it began causing high CPU usage, and it also crashed every hour or so. It was quite annoying. :/ I've been using Chrome since then, and well, Chrome seems to be very light on the CPU. :D

While it's true that Firefox's memory starts higher, in relation to chrome, Firefox's increase was lower when it is doing more work. Prolonged use of the browsers would have chrome with higher memory usage.

Also with their new interface, I believe there is less used space than chrome.


I do however love how chrome puts in line numbers when viewing code.

...Less space used than Chrome? Chrome has the smallest interface, allowing for more of the page to be shown.

Chrome doesn't spike in memory usage, either. FireFox is a constant memory whore from the moment you open it.

Oh lord. Why is there so much wasted space on the FireFox window? Specifically, the top, that's just horrendous.

Oh, and who uses a browser (let alone the bad one in question) to report RAM usage? Here's a hint, Ctrl+Alt+Delete (Task Manager). Learn it, live it, love it.

IIRC the task manager isn't reliable for reporting memory usage for browsers that use a separate process for each tab because it will count shared memory multiple times.

I just downloaded the beta. I should have stayed with the newest 3 version. The way I had all my Add-ons, Mozilla should have just coppied mine and released it as 4 lol. But seriously im gonna go back to using version 3 until v4 (not beta) is out for a while and will have more compatibility with add-ons.

Moonlight Memento wrote:

Each Chrome tab is a separate chrome.exe in Task Manager.

Which was exactly Nickr5's point. He was talking about separate processes with shared memory.

FYI: when Windows operating system executes an "exe" file on your HD, it creates a process and loads data into it from the exe file. By default then, each running instance is its own process.

Furthermore, the way Chrome handles things (or so I read about when Chrome was in its infancy) is to have a separate process for each tab, so each tab is in effect its own running program, independent of the other tabs, then for the GUI front end they are all displayed together in the single browser window. They did it this way for several reasons, some of the important reasons being that it allows tabs to easily be moved between windows or to be removed/added from/to Chrome windows. Another reason is for stability; their idea was that if one tab process crashed it wouldn't affect the others. I'm not sure how well this worked out.

Either way, the separate processes then have to have a way to communicate with each other. Shared memory is one way to handle that, and it might be how Chrome handled the communication; I don't know. Nickr5's point was that Windows task manager does not report shared memory properly. Whether this is true or not I also don't know, but it seems completely reasonable given the situation.

On another note, "Who uses their browser to find out how much memory their browser is using? Use task manager" doesn't really help your point or add anything to the conversation. And "Why is there so much wasted space?" sounds like you are grasping at straws since the two windows were almost identical - there was an extra strip across the top of the window for 1 button, which Pirion said can be removed which would then make the two windows completely identical as far as space usage is concerned.

It appears Firefox is copying Chrome's good ideas. You shouldn't try to defend Chrome against that, rather you should feel good that your favorite browser is being copied by the competition. Standardization is a good thing, especially when it comes to computers.

Ripiz wrote:

Plus, RAMs is like cheapest thing in your computer, it's easier to get extra memory for Chrome than extra CPU power for Firefox.

Not only that, but extra CPU power is not necessarily going to fix that. If the slowdown you are experiencing is when you open a new website or when you first start the browser, the CPU is probably sitting there being bored while it waits for new data. Upgrading the processor might help some, but to see any real boost you'd probably have to upgrade your memory speed.

So your comment becomes "it's easier to get extra memory than it is to upgrade to DDR3 memory and a better processor and maybe some other stuff too." Plus, there's only so much you can do for speed; you get all the best stuff and manage to get a 50% performance boost, but then your computer is maxed out and there's nothing more you can do.

These days, it's better to make a speedy program than it is to make a memory-efficient one. Of course, doing both would be even better, but as long as you have an x64 you can just keep getting more and more memory.

Sweet, I was just looking on Newegg because of this post, and Newegg has a board (currently out of stock though) that supports 48GB memory, DDR3: to get it and fill it with RAM would cost about $1080. Maybe someday.

For the record, I'm not saying either Firefox or Chrome is doing it better, one way or the other. I've never used Chrome, so I can't compare them. I'm only comparing the traits that others are listing here.

Chrome's still better.

That aside, Firefox 4 has a lot of potential. My only problem with it is the custom buttons on the side conflict with my themes on Windows XP in a lot of ugly ways.