Warning! Do not download before hiding your IP with a VPN!
Your IP Address is .   Location is
Your Internet Provider can see what you are downloading!  Hide your IP ADDRESS with a VPN!
We strongly recommend using a reliable VPN client to hide yourself on the Internet. It's FREE!
Hide me now!

Firefox 3.0 leaves IE7 behind in memory usage

Mozilla tested Firefox 3.0 Beta 4, Firefox 2.0 and Internet Explorer 7 in terms of memory usage and the conclusion favors the last iteration of the open source browser over its predecessor, but also over the proprietary Microsoft product. The Redmond company, following the release of IE7, acknowledged the existence of problems related to memory leaks and with websites remaining opened for large periods of time in the browser. The scenario is illustrative of the high memory usage issues that have plagued Internet Explorer 7.

In this context, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Mozilla, after testing the memory usage of Firefox 2.0, IE7 and Firefox 3.0 Beta 4, has come to the conclusion that the latest development milestone for version 3.0 of its open source browser delivers superior memory handling capabilities compared to its alternatives. In a test performed by Stuart Parmenter, a Software Engineer working at Mozilla Corporation, the memory usage of Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 is stabilized under 100 MB, while Internet Explorer 7 uses five times as much approaching 500 MB.

“All browsers increase in memory use slightly over time, but the Firefox 3 slope is closer to 0. The _peak_ of Firefox 3 is lower than the terminal size of Firefox 2! The terminal state of Firefox 3 is nearly 140MB smaller than Firefox 2. 60% less memory! IE7 doesn’t appear to give any memory back, even after all the windows are closed! Firefox 3 ends up about 400mb smaller than IE7 at the end of the test,” stated Parmenter.

And performance is one of the areas where Microsoft acknowledged the fact that IE7 is inferior to Firefox 3.0. During the keynote address delivered at MIX08 in the first week of March by Dean Hachamovitch, General Manager Internet Explorer, a graphic comparing IE7, IE8 Beta 1, Firefox 3.0 Beta 3 and Safari 3 Beta, clearly showed that Internet Explorer 7 was lagging in terms of performance behind rival browsers. However, while Mozilla said nothing about IE8, Hachamovitch stated that the performances were almost the same as Firefox 3.0 Beta 3. But as far as IE7 is concerned, there is no comparison with Firefox 3.0 Beta 3.

“Our work has paid off. We’re significantly smaller than previous versions of Firefox and other browsers. You can keep the browser open for much longer using much less memory. Extensions are much less likely to cause leaks. We’ve got automated tools in place to detect leaks that might result from new code. We’re always monitoring and testing to make sure we’re moving in the right direction. All of this has been done while dramatically improving performance.”

[Via Softpedia]


Feel free to post your Firefox 3.0 leaves IE7 behind in memory usage torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, rapidshare, depositfiles, uploaded.net, rapidgator, filefactory, netload, crack, serial, keygen, requirements or whatever-related comments here. Don't be rude (permban), use only English, don't go offtopic and read FAQ before asking a question. Owners of this website aren't responsible for content of comments.
  1. Beerz
    March 18th, 2008 | 09:52

    Gonna get this 1

  2. RaRa
    March 18th, 2008 | 09:53

    FireFox FTW


  3. jahsj
    March 18th, 2008 | 09:57

    good job, but i still don’t like firefox

  4. mEtRiX
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:01

    w00t! another kick in the groin for Microsoft’s IE! XD

  5. Me
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:02

    the part where microsuck fails, epically, is where they admit that Firefox pwns IE7.


  6. x1r0
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:03

    Anyone got a RS link for FF3 Beta 4? :>

  7. the.geeker
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:06

    Firefox is kick-ass browser!!

  8. Atlas
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:07

    let’s face it, even if ie7 had the same performance, anybody with the technical knowledge to d/l a browser would have already gotten something else.

  9. soho
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:12

    they not tested Opera because it’s better than all others!?

  10. John
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:12

    IE7 takes alot less memory than firefox 2 on every computer I’ve tested so the figures are not likely to be quite correct, but it seems quite promising however for firefox 3.

  11. Badman
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:14
  12. philips14c
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:15

    Install some plug-ins and run some javascripts and then see the memory usage! Anyway the tests were made by Mozilla! LOL!

  13. Dave
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:17

    Microsoft is at it again trying to cane our systems into submission so we upgrade to more expensive components. Another poor attempt. God knows how a company like this can stay in business when such minimal effort is put into upgrading vital components like this. Microsoft must be counting on peoples laziness and stupidity to be dazzled by a logo and a promise of better features. I’m glad to see Firefox making their browser even better and proving why it’s the best internet browser. Mozilla Rules!!!

  14. Dj D Rec 1
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:20

    direct link to the downloads page

  15. justathought
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:25

    Reality is:

    IE for serious job (like banking etc..) because of compatibility and page requirements (quick in and out and goodbye ie)

    Firefox for FUN surfing (rich pages, plugins,…)

    Opera for FAST and constant daily surfing (i love quick click to remove pictures or enable author mode (which removes stupid nonreadable backgrounds and flashy fonts) and hitting + key for page zoom)

  16. nobody
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:31

    do you also drive 3 types of different cars, like for serious driving, or for fun driving….?

  17. N0SCeNe
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:36

    This is too damn funny!!
    I was just reading the comments on FF vs IE7 and ive have been thinking lately about giving firefox a try,and what happens? that damn full page ad pops up an IE7 freezes up solid!!! had to reboot IE7(and this is not the first time this has happened eather!)Suppose this is a sign from the BROWSER GODS??
    LOL, and what was that link again for Firefox???? :)

  18. This is for fun, this is for work...
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:39

    @ justathought
    You are ignorant man – for the few (and I mean very few) pages that firefox can’t read, it can use IE for that right within firefox!

    I’m wondering which club I should beat you over the head with:
    My wooden club is for Fun Beating
    My Steel Club is for Serious Beating
    My Flamethrower is for a Fast Death

  19. Poppa!
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:41

    Don’t understand why they released Safari now! What’s the point in starting a fight u know u can’t win?

  20. IT
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:43

    safari is the worst one of all though

  21. philips14c
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:50

    IE7 uses way less RAM than FF2, yet in this test IE7 uses a lot more RAM than FF2. Think about it: the FF2 RAM issue is now very well known! The chart provided doesn’t show Firefox 2 in a leak situation, it’s memory usage is greater than the other browsers (This is a well known fact)
    I dont trust this test!

  22. John
    March 18th, 2008 | 10:58

    thx for the report… but still no official x64 version of Firefox (only Minefiled project)… IE7 x64 works much faster than IE x32

  23. Joel
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:03

    All they need to do now is stop the damn thing crashing. No web browser’s perfect.

  24. This is for fun, this is for work...
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:06

    Yeah it may crash once in a while but it’s still a lot less than IE and you can pick up your session right where you left off so nothing has been lost.

  25. AB
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:10

    What an absolute crock! Let’s go over this again… a Mozilla engineer did some test, didn’t publish any of his testing criteria, and found that their current beta product whooped everything.

    “IE7 doesn’t appear to give any memory back, even after all the windows are closed!” LOL… OK, try the test yourself at home folks WITHOUT any 3RD PARTY TOOLBARS and watch as IE7 returns memory when you close windows. Amazing! If only I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this same whinge and then asked the person to remove Google toolbar which leaks memory like no tomorrow and lo and behold, IE7 suddenly behaves so much better.

    Sure, IE7 has a lot of issues, but c’mon… this test isn’t worth the bytes you just paid to download the page and read it on!

    And yes… I use FF AND IE. Yes, FF IS Faster. No, I’m not a MS biggot, I just like accurate and balanced reporting. :)

  26. M
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:13

    Firefox 2 is using about 1,3 GB memory here right now. It’s ridiculous.

  27. DeXTR
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:16

    To all you fan boys and girls of IE, the IE browser sucks BIG time period!
    @15 “Reality is:
    IE for serious job (like banking etc..) because of compatibility and page requirements (quick in and out and goodbye ie)” The reality IS that IE has been around longer and there has been no good alternative, therefor every web developer built its sites according to how IE render the page equal to WRONG because IE doesn’t follow standards! It has been proven that IE is full of security holes bigger than your mama’s panties! I’m for all other browser because they render my pages I make correct, IE doesn’t! And for all you folks out there that complain about memory usage in FF2 GET BIGGER MEMORY OR GET A LIFE!!!

  28. trell
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:16


    “IE7 uses way less RAM than FF2, yet in this test IE7 uses a lot more RAM than FF2.”

    Ermmm….isn’t that a bit like saying “Scooters are faster than racing cars, but in this test, the racing car is faster than the scooter”?

    In other words, it’s a stupid statement, doesn’t make sense, and goes on the presumption that you believe everyone thinks IE7 doesn’t use much memory.

    IE7 uses a tremendous amount of RAM. It is one of the single worst memory hoggers outside of Macaffee/Norton products. You don’t need an advanced system setup to monitor the results. Just try it on a wide range of different PCs, from old P3 or Celeron dinosaurs to the latest Quad-core builds. IE7 significantly slows down the PC’s other background tasks when it is being run. Even a glance at the Task Manager will tell you that!

    “Think about it: The FF2 RAM issue is now very well-known. The chart provided doesn’t show Firefox 2 in a leak situation, it’s memory usage is greater than the other browsers (This is a well known fact)”

    You keep using the words “Well Known Fact” as if it actually is a well-known fact. Sorry, but a) It’s NOT a well-known fact becasue b) It’s not true. – I don’t know where you’re getting your info from, but I suspect that it may be from a certain corporation beginging with the letter M. – If you are going to make bold statements and declarations like that, and claim them to be ‘Well-known facts’, you may want to back up your statements, because they will get picked up on.

    It is a shame that they didn’t include Opera in the list. While FF2 still remains my browser of choice, I hold no grudge against Opera at all, and by all accounts it deserves to be in the test.

  29. Mikeovic
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:16

    Massive lawlz. If you’re worried about memory, get a new fking computer. It’s that simple. I have 3 gigs of memory, and never ran into any problems with IE7

  30. dilligaf
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:25

    i don’t like how i had all the nice bookmarks in the toolbar, but now they stuck the “home” back up there as the first one. i really need a link to get to about::blank :S

  31. Rob
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:26

    FF 2 is using about 140mb for me atm, that’s with quite a few plugins and about 10 tabs open.
    FF is the best everyday browser for me, it has all i need in one little browser. Although Opera is good, i don’t like it’s ad-blocking. Adblock plugin for FF is soo much better than Opera’s built in one. Plus Widgets suck, FF plugins work so much better. But yet i have to agree, opera has the fastest web page load times, but it just doesn’t have the usability and convenience of FF.

    My 2 cents.

  32. This is for fun, this is for work...
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:30

    @ Rob
    Have you used the firefox speed hack? If you haven’t, maybe that’s why you think opera is faster.

  33. trell
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:30


    So if someone produces an app that is sloppy and memory intensive, you just buy a new computer that will run it?

    Sorry Mikeovic, but some people don’t have rich parents or stacks of cash to just upgrade because of an app, and not everybody wants the latest, fastest phattest piece of Alienware just to run a simple browser.

    The people with more sense than money usually just ditch the poorly performing app, and go and find something better instead.

  34. jsn
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:30

    If you want a slow browser with security issues and lots of other problems use IE

  35. Mark
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:31

    Firefox for me, but it needs a bunch of extensions to really make it usable. Unnfortunately, right now, hardly any of mine are compatible out of the box with IE3. So if I want to use it, I have to hack the config.

    Hardly the ideal state of affairs.

  36. lindsay lohan
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:32

    I use firefox on all my computers

  37. philips14c
    March 18th, 2008 | 11:34

    @29 I get my info from my personal experience with FF2 and from the Internet (forums, blogs) and I’ve seen that other people had the same problems as I did! I’ve reinstalled FF2, unistalled all extensions, even installed FF3 beta 3 but the problems remained! I don’t know if this version of FF3 fixed the bugs but this test is suspicious at least! I bet they’ve tested with a freshly installed FF and no plug-ins or javascript!

  38. trell
    March 18th, 2008 | 12:07


    So your “Well-known facts” all come from your own personal experience, and a few forums where people reported problems then?

    One thing you have to realise about forums, particularly threads where someone complains about aspects of a product. – Nobody ever really writes “My product is working just fine! No problems here!”, do they? Maybe 99% of people using Firefox have a trouble-free time, while the 1% who do, go to forums. – If all you do is read the opinions of those 1%, you’ll think that the other 99% will also have problems with Firefox, right?

    It certainly doesn’t make your statement a “Well-known fact”

    Now I admit, I am skeptical about this test too, but not for the same reasons. – The test was run by Mozilla, and therefore, is likely to have some bias. Secondly, they didn’t run it alongside Opera. Thirdly, everyone knows that 87% of statistics are made up on the spot (and that IS common knowledge! ;-) )

  39. John
    March 18th, 2008 | 12:23

    Currently running only this page on both firefox 2 and IE7.
    Clean boot for both.
    ff consumes 59800 memory and ie 38700.

    Gotta wonder how the numbers for the chart were obtained.

  40. Adam Jones
    March 18th, 2008 | 12:30
  41. billsnoton
    March 18th, 2008 | 12:38

    I’m under the impression IE8 is around the corner, I’d need to see a Mozilla 3.0 vs Internet explorer 8 comparison before saying anything, though even with that I sure as hell expect mozilla to carry the win.

  42. Loachdriver
    March 18th, 2008 | 13:16

    IE8 beta will make you love IE7; FF3.3&4 won’t work with any of my add ons, so back to FF2. You use what works for you.

  43. ssj4monkey
    March 18th, 2008 | 13:18

    he actually used excel 2007 to graph that…lol

  44. WilR
    March 18th, 2008 | 14:09

    Btw, he DID test Opera after that, but didn’t update the main post. Just posted the result link in the comments. (link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartp/2328802961/sizes/o/)

    Turns out Opera 9.5 takes a bit more memory than ff3.

    I still <3 Opera though :P

  45. Mike
    March 18th, 2008 | 14:10

    I don’t know how he gets to 500MB memory usage, mine crashes long before that from just opening and closing windows.
    I will keep my IE open for a few more days but it would be nice to see a long it took them.

  46. lol
    March 18th, 2008 | 14:25

    Now try opera~!~
    opera kicks but.

  47. opera fan
    March 18th, 2008 | 14:55

    Opera rules , ITS THE FASTER BROWSER
    jut try it.

  48. anon
    March 18th, 2008 | 15:15

    Wow, look at all the firefox fanboys.

    Fact is IE7 memory management is much better than FFs. Try doing a few tests yourself and see what happens.

  49. Rudi
    March 18th, 2008 | 15:38

    Indeed I am experiencing a significant drop in memory with FF3 Beta 4. It’s really amazing considering that both IE7 and FF2 used to pass the 100mb mark in a matter of minutes. I am using FF3 now on Vista and couldn’t be happier.

  50. Sp4rkR4t
    March 18th, 2008 | 15:49

    To the several people who think IE7 uses less ram than FF2.

    The test actually traces the real ram usage of an app, not just what M$ windows reports as being used, remember that IE is a integral part of windows so half of the threads it’s spawning (including the render engine itself) don’t get displayed in windows task manager.

  51. go memphis! unc and duke suck
    March 18th, 2008 | 15:56

    well after adding all ur addons and themes. firefox is just a better browser for people who like to customize stuff. if while having less memory great but even if it is using memory, why shouldnt it? it does more sht ie could ever do.

  52. Edyy
    March 18th, 2008 | 15:58

    I love firefox and i hate all you hippies that think IE or OPERA is better, (nothing personal, just business)

  53. kostas
    March 18th, 2008 | 16:08

    OPERA is the most Advanced broswer.You can do just everything but you must try it FIRST and then look again IE and Firefox.They always missing something.

  54. gaga
    March 18th, 2008 | 16:22

    Currently displaying rlslog only, FF2 uses about 28mb on my machine, IE7 uses 42MB

  55. Demonsweat
    March 18th, 2008 | 16:30

    Of course IE sucks in comparison to the Fox. MSWIN still beats out MACOS(Right handed Vs. Left). Optimize your Windowz experience even more by installing Firefox today!

  56. dale
    March 18th, 2008 | 16:33

    IE 7 definitely uses less ram than FF2. I’m looking forward to FF3 being better than FF2 though.

  57. costa200
    March 18th, 2008 | 16:45

    I use Opera. Never pass the 100mb mark even with several tabs open. Not that it really matters these days. Memory usage concerns are a bit in the past. Only with extreme multitasking will you run into memory problems in an updated computer.

  58. Observer
    March 18th, 2008 | 16:46

    I wonder… is Firefox beta 3 stable enough for daily work? I’m thinking of giving it a try.

  59. CajuCLC
    March 18th, 2008 | 16:53

    IE7 here uses less memory than FF 1, 2, beta 3 and alpha 4.

  60. GhostGum
    March 18th, 2008 | 17:01

    so an inhouse study by a company shows their own product is superior to competing products… and you post it as a rlslog article.


    an independent study and i might actually finish reading the article.

    BTW im using Firefox 3.0 Beta 4, & apart from the odd crash (to be forgiven as is still beta) it does perform better than other browsers IMO.

  61. Avett Brothers
    March 18th, 2008 | 17:15

    Heres what I’m talking about:

  62. EMPiRE
    March 18th, 2008 | 17:21

    YEAA! LONG LIVE MOZILLA FIREFOX!!!!! Will wait for Firefox 3 To actually be finished, since i dont like beta of anything. I’m using Firefox 2.0! Can’t wait till FF3 is done!

  63. Terry
    March 18th, 2008 | 17:39

    Haha, no kidding, offcourse Mozilla will tell you their browser is the best. Now let someone not committed to Mozilla do the test.

  64. Dethcyth
    March 18th, 2008 | 17:52

    With 30 seconds of customization(move any wanted features to the menu bar, such as stop, back, url etc. and then disable the navigation&bookmarks tool bars) there is another browser that has only 1 bar. Its FF.

  65. anom
    March 18th, 2008 | 17:59

    i’m surprised people still cite “one-bar” as a plus, honestly how big are people’s monitors these days? Surely an extra couple of pixels isn’t that bad.

  66. TitosBackScratcher
    March 18th, 2008 | 18:18

    I don’t know about memory usage but I’ve been using FF for years now. It took getting used to after using IE for so long but thats normal. I cant see any reason for switching now, I love FF.

    I finally decided to take a dive 3 days ago to FF 3 beta4. So far I havent had one crash. My walnut skin works as well as:
    Ad Blocker Plus, FasterFox, CustomButtons, ToolbarButtons, Ymail notifier. PDF Download is showing as not compatible but I can use it fine. The only 2 that don’t work that I normally use are Foxmarks Bookmark Syncronizer and gtranslate. So far I’m liking FF3! :D

  67. xasd
    March 18th, 2008 | 18:34

    People still use Internet Explorer as their Main Browser? lol…

  68. erazare
    March 18th, 2008 | 19:01

    i own a major website, we hit our alexa rating of 1.3 million in under 4 weeks, and over 70% of our users are using firefox… clearly showing its far more used than IE

  69. simko
    March 18th, 2008 | 19:02

    firefox still doesnt release memory in use when minimized wich for me is important wich ie7 have no problem with .

    And i always have browser minimized when not in use and the program shouldnt increase in memory at that point hopefully mozilla can get firefox to that point in firefox v4 or v5.

    That of course doesnt hinder me to use firefox but it would be a very nice feature. :)

  70. J. Colonia
    March 18th, 2008 | 19:24


    geeki related, right?

  71. grimpr
    March 18th, 2008 | 19:43

    Another glorious release from the venerable behemoth source code. If you’re not already running the latest beta of F3 you’re simply missing some awesome stuff. As for the zealots that have been indoctrinated to the Cult’s ways, try typing “about:mozilla” in Firefox 2 & 3…revel,enlighten,rejoice! hehehe.

  72. Killawife
    March 18th, 2008 | 20:08

    I use Firefox, mostly to get rid of annoying pop-ups and spyware. But I must say that this test is truly misgiving. I still use IE7 from time to time and has NEVER got it to use 500 megs of ram. Ordinarily it uses around 150 MB. FF2 uses 118 Mb right now. So the difference isnt that great. I actually started IE7 now and browsed thru some pages. Guess what? 65 Megs.

  73. Sean
    March 18th, 2008 | 20:18

    I love how this is the only test that shows IE7 using more memory than FF2. FF2 is the single biggest memory hog on my computer besides maybe PS. Every single objective test I’ve ever seen has IE7 memory usage below that of FF.

  74. TheResidentEvil
    March 18th, 2008 | 20:20

    Firefox sucks up memory and does not let it go. Opera is the one to get.

  75. vrt
    March 18th, 2008 | 20:43

    Opera is the best

  76. minus
    March 18th, 2008 | 20:44

    WOW,Someone tests their own product and claims that its better than the rival product…….

  77. halosuckss
    March 18th, 2008 | 21:00

    I noticed though that some websites don’t load for me anymore or load very slowly. It does use less memory but there seems to be a website conflict now.

  78. Joey Numbers
    March 18th, 2008 | 21:35

    Opera 9.26 FTW!

  79. Nexus
    March 18th, 2008 | 21:36

    Ok, I did not read ALL of the comments but I can say that Firefox is the only browser to even come close on the Acid 3 test, plain and simple that makes it the browser of choice.

  80. raindog
    March 18th, 2008 | 21:53

    I don’t know whose ass they pulled that graph from but IE always consumes A LOT less memory than FF2. In fact, based on my experience, FF should be the red line and IE the green one

  81. dagger906
    March 18th, 2008 | 23:57

    Keep in mind that IE7 is entrenched into Windows OS itself. Many IE elements preloads on Windows startup, and does not shut off even if you don’t use it. That’s why it seems to load faster than Firefox, Opera, and other browsers – it’s already loaded, and makes Windows startup instead of browser startup slower. This preloading also have to do with IE7 not giving memory back after it’s closes, as it never truly shuts down.

    Personally, I don’t care about memory usage. My PC have 8GB of it for heavy gaming and multitasking while maintaining connections to large torrent swarms, so it’s not going to run out anyway. Memory is so dirt cheap those days. Anyone browsing with 2+GB without multitasking or 4+GB with multitasking shouldn’t worry about it either. I have to stick to Firefox though, because of AdBlock plugin. Just can’t look at those ad banners. XD

  82. muddawg
    March 19th, 2008 | 00:21

    I don’t know why so many people on here seem to be having problems with Firefox. I’ve been using it since 2005 and have not had any problems with it whatsoever. Some people have actually gotten yelled at in my technology class for using IE. The computer they were using ended up with a virus from being on IE for 2 minutes… ridiculous.

  83. Ba4ka
    March 19th, 2008 | 01:45

    Opera can do that too, just add a button to show or hide the menu.

    You can make it even smaller by using a minimalistic skin too, i’m just too lazy to go find one though as i don’t feel i need more space.

    Example: http://bayimg.com/paJfeAabd

  84. March 19th, 2008 | 01:49

    lol media blackout of Opera web browser. Just ignore it because it’s too good to be diverting attention from IE and Firefox

  85. hulabulahighfly
    March 19th, 2008 | 02:17

    start a sister site, call it ‘old tech news’

  86. nostalgic
    March 19th, 2008 | 02:30

    lol, for real opera owns both of those scrub browsers.

    i may also point out that i rarely run over 40mb in opera

  87. halosuckss
    March 19th, 2008 | 03:32

    what is a good ad-blocker for opera.. I would use that browser more if I could find a free ad-blocker for it.

  88. Ba4ka
    March 19th, 2008 | 03:50

    There’s a built in ad-blocker in Opera, just throw in some ad blocking list into the file taking care of those and you’ll rarely see any ads again.

    Did it about 10 months ago and i haven’t really felt the need to update it yet.

    You could do it manually too but that’s pretty flawed, you’d have to check the source and go for the script url.

    But no, there’s no automatic way of disposing of ads, you’ll have to invest a few minutes to get rid of them.

  89. Avett Brothers
    March 19th, 2008 | 04:19

    Thanks for the pics, Opera’s looking good, this might be an option when websites stop supporting IE6, until then I hold on to it, no problems with it whatsoever.

  90. Elvishfolk
    March 19th, 2008 | 04:45

    I’ve never found such a good browser until I got Opera… I like firefox, but Opera is so much better. As for IE7 or any, for that matter, I stopped using that stuff back in 2000… that shows how much they suck!!!

  91. Edbrewer
    March 19th, 2008 | 09:32

    I can only assume the reason they didn’t include the ie8 beta is because it performs substantially better than ie7.

    Not really surprising, considering mozilla has a bit of a vested interest in their browser looking good.

    That said, I’m reading these posts in ff3b4.

  92. dagger906
    March 19th, 2008 | 13:35

    It’s only you l337 people that’s changing browsers every few days for slightly better performance. Most people out there will stick with one until it’s totally unusable. They switched from IE to FF because… IE was totally unusable back then. Why should they switch back to the new IE or something else when FF works fine? Opera or IE8 may be very slightly better in some aspects, but unless FF is broken, they’re unlikely to make their own lives difficult by using an unfamiliar browser. FF is still one of the best, if not the, and that’s good enough.

  93. whoever
    March 19th, 2008 | 14:18

    it’s food for the crowd… i don’t like IE but memory comparisons can be veryvery biased. although in this case i don’t think it is. besides, if i have the memory i want my apps to use it. saves me some waitingtimes which i prefer than looking at the memstats half empty

  94. YeahRight
    March 19th, 2008 | 15:18

    So one company says that a competitor’s product did poorly on their “unbiased” test, the methodology of which they do not reveal, and this is news?

    Wow. Just… Wow.

    No wonder Apple products are so popular on this site.

  95. campy
    March 19th, 2008 | 17:28

    I have used FF for years and watched it grow from a fledgling lightweight to the hulking memory intensive resource hog it is today. What the hell happened to it?

    I switched to opera for a while and it was nice and lightweight, had no obvious memory leaks but was unstable. :(

    FF2 is terrible, open a few tabs and leave it running for a while and your troubles will begin! It’s memory usage gradually climbs through the roof. Those damn full page ads on here make it crash 20% of the time. AHHH

    Not even going to bother trying this release, switching back to IE which has always been light on features but PROPERLY CODED.

    Oh yeah, and those statistics are absolute BS, FF2 eats memory up, uses far more than IE7, in truth it would be off the chart. Idiots.

  96. DeXTR
    March 19th, 2008 | 20:14

    @98 Please! Your computer must be a Pentium II with 64kB RAM or something!!!

    “Not even going to bother trying this release, switching back to IE which has always been light on features but PROPERLY CODED.”

    As a web developer this comment makes my life sooooo much harder than it should be! And I’m reading the comments and people are still using IE6 for the love of god PLEASE STOP!!

  97. The Last Temptation of Wayne
    March 19th, 2008 | 21:35

    Why? I love IE6, I don’t need extensions and crap just a simple browser, with 1 bar! For as long as websites support it I’ll stick with it, I like that it’s simple, everybody talks about it being unsafe, i never had a problem with it.

  98. dagger906
    March 19th, 2008 | 23:09

    It seems only spyware-ridden scam sites support IE6 those days. It’s the browser they’ve always loved.

  99. Baris Akarsu
    March 20th, 2008 | 05:25

    When the secure sites, banking and such, stop supporting IE6, thats when I will have to find another browser.

  100. idomagic
    March 20th, 2008 | 13:10

    @ 91
    “You could do it manually too but that’s pretty flawed, you’d have to check the source and go for the script url.”

    Uh, ever tried right-click -> “block content”?

    Opera’s “block content” by far outperforms the ad-block extensions available to firefox in terms of usability.

  101. campy
    March 20th, 2008 | 18:59


    I use an e6750 clocked at 3.9 and I have 2Gb of ram. My system is fast and stable. FF2 is not… Leave it running for a few hours with multiple tabs open and it will grind to a halt.

  102. dANKYsiXOQ
    November 14th, 2013 | 15:06

    http://flobots.com/files/#10785 can order tramadol online – how to buy tramadol online overnight

Leave a reply


rent this ad space