Hi!
JTK wrote:
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> >
> > > > Browse a chosen 20
> > > > sites in the two browsers (of equal HTML and CSS functionality), then
> > > > check the memory usage.
> > >
> > > Ah, Mr. Markham, do you *really* want me to do that, and report back
> > > with the results?
> >
> > Yep. If you like.
>
> Done and done.
>
> > At which point I would say "Yes, Mozilla's memory usage
> > could be improved. Thanks for pointing out the obvious."
> >
>
> I'm sure you would. What you should be saying is "Holy Christ, this is
> insane. Nobody is ever going to use this thing when it uses such
> outrageous amounts of resources."
That's why it's not called 1.0.
Yeah I know, it's been three years, but keep in mind that IE had about
the same dev cycle.
> > Saying that your measure is silly is not the same as saying Mozilla's
> > memory usage figures are good.
> >
>
> Right, it's a way of pretending to acknowledge the problem without
> actually doing so: "Saying I drink a lot of booze doesn't mean I'm an
> alcoholic."
To continue your analogy: "Nah... He's an alcoholic and will always be.
Let's put him on the electric chair and get over with it."
> > As for "my measures", I'd much rather spend my time writing patches.
>
> Could you patch the massive memory hoggage problem?
While Gerv AFAIK can't (no offensem I can't do it either), there *are*
people who can.
The latest Style-system check-in improves bloat by 2-3MB. Combine that
with the XPCDOM-stuff landing Tuesday, we are down by 4-5MB. Doesn't
sound too shabby at all, does it? It's of course still not optimal, but
noticable progress is certainly made.
Christian
