I agree that the numbers don't prove it one way or the other. I was just pointing out that showing numbers doesn't help.
As to the issues with firefox it could be flash, but the previous version of firefox, given the same open tabs and content didn't show such high CPU usage as soon as it starts. I'm running the 64 bit firefox and it really sucks when it comes to sites which use flash heavily it crashes repeatedly. Paolo On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Reid Rivenburgh <re...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Paolo Galtieri <pgalti...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I don't think you have an issue. Here's what mine shows with an uptime > of 1 > > day > > > > PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > > 20 0 1118m 317m 34m S 40.4 15.8 4:50.01 > > firefox > > 9 -11 501m 2940 2080 S 2.6 0.1 41:02.09 pulseaudio > > > > Notice that firefox shows substantially more. > > I'm not sure that's a compelling defense there.... They're very > different apps. I have no idea if 501m is reasonable for pulseaudio. > > > BTW, has anyone else noted that the latest firefox (3.5.8) is a CPU hog? > > In my experience, that's often caused by flash running on a page or > some extension behaving poorly. Is that possible in your case? > > reid > -- > users mailing list > users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
