More Firefox Bloat? Say It Ain't So, Mozilla http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/05/firefox_bloat
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Jason King <jasonking at computer.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Martin Bochnig <martin at martux.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:30 AM, Glynn Foster <Glynn.Foster at sun.com> >> wrote: >>> On 31/10/2008, at 3:58 PM, Martin Bochnig wrote: >>> indicates that there's pretty big demand generally for Firefox 3, so we'll >>> continue to ship it in OpenSolaris as the default browser for the moment. If >>> you care about its stability and performance, you are of course welcome to >>> contribute locally within the desktop community or, better yet, upstream to >>> the fine folks at Mozilla Foundation. >>> >>> >>> Glynn >> >> >> Reporting about the issue is all I have time to contribute for, >> unfortunately. I'm into other projects and I cannot start yet another >> one. >> I wanted to bring this problem to the light and I'm interested in what >> others think about it. >> For myself personally, in the future also for Natamar, the "solution" >> is to use older versions of FF, or seamonkey 1.1 (didn't test >> seamonkey 2.0 alpha). >> >> Fact is that FF3 cannot be used on low-to-medium speed platforms. >> Now that you know about it (a Blade 100 user's perspective), it is up >> to your judgement and decisions. Maybe you can find a good compromise. >> Don't forget that the Blade 150 (very similar to Blade 100 in most >> aspects) has been a current model until April 2006. >> And on x86 I'm sure many folks are still using Coppermine and Tualatin >> PIII's. >> >> %martin >> _______________________________________________ >> opensolaris-discuss mailing list >> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris.org >> > > Even worse than that, even on a Ferrari 4000 2ghz w/ 1gb ram, starting > with around sxce b98, the desktop in general seem to be suffering from > a critical performance regression, FF3 seems to be the worst in this > respect. I've seen systems where actual swapping (not paging) are > more responsive (I'm not kidding), yet none of the usual tools > (vmstat, prstat, mpstat, etc.) show anything amiss. As I have more > time to dig into it, I might be able to provide actual actionable > issues, but first I was at least going to get to b101 and see if it > still is having the issue. >
