Firefox 3.0 RC

[Sythe]

wait is 200k not normal for FF? I've gotten it up to 1 mil LOL. And i scan my laptop all the time so no spyware that i know of... oh well

[Miltani]

I can't understand why anyone would hate the new AwesomeBar, but in the spirit of being helpful, those who want the old style back while still using FF3 might want to check out this plugin:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6227
Edit: on further examination that plugin only seems to adjust the way it looks, doesn't actually change the way that the bar works. Oh well.

Personally I've been using FF3 on two different OS's for a couple weeks now and I've loved it so far. Location bar makes things easier for me to find since it can search based on subject title, new Mac skin looks a lot nicer than the old one, and my favorite feature being the ability to quit and save my current tabs. In FF2 I used to force kill my browser if I needed to quit and come back later, that way it would try to restore my tabs - now I won't have to do that anymore.

Oh, another tip if you don't like the way the new Back button looks (way to big imo) you can make it smaller by right clicking, click customize, and then check use small icons.

that plugin does nothing to bring back the old ff2 url bar. I need a freaking url bar not some bookmark/history search engine.

[VZX]

I have 2 gigs of RAM
when I used 2.0, browsing 4chan can maxed the memory usage to 1.8k~1.9k

Now it rarely break 1k memory usage with my Visual Studio and FF 3.0

[Ikith]

So far I like it a lot! New skin rocks! Tagging rocks! They did good!

[Norelco]

My problem with upgrading to new FF is they change around too much stuff and it looks ugly. I can't even upgrade to the newest FF2 because they changed where the X is to close tabs. They're all next to each specific tab instead of in a static location on the right. I checked out the youtube vids of FF3 and they have that same shit there so.. no thanks.

LOL oh no, they moved an X!

[Xanthe]

the only thing i dislike about FF3 is the pop-up for downloads. i don't really need to be told i'm saving a pic every time. FF1 had it as a "feature," FF2 removed it, and now its back with an updated look.

http://downloadstatusbar.mozdev.org/

[Starless]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...emoryusage.jpg

Seems to be working just fine for me. The amount of memory Firefox 3 uses is about as predictable as Almighty Apkallu's spawn pattern.

[Correction]

My problem with upgrading to new FF is they change around too much stuff and it looks ugly. I can't even upgrade to the newest FF2 because they changed where the X is to close tabs. They're all next to each specific tab instead of in a static location on the right. I checked out the youtube vids of FF3 and they have that same shit there so.. no thanks.

LOL oh no, they moved an X!

And added many, many more. I got used to the new X's but I can see how they contribute to the overall clutter of the UI up top.

AwesomeBar = terrible UI design.

Yep it's using more RAM than 2 ever did. Time will tell if it's as crashtastic when running flash applications over extended periods of time.

Besides that no real complaints. Just a web browser after all.

[Shuemue]

It's using considerably less memory on my machine.

[Zosi]

For fuck's sake, stop using "20k" when you mean "20m" or "20,000k". If you're saying that Firefox 2 only used "100k", you're saying it used 100 kilobytes, not megabytes. Task manager reports memory use in kilobytes, and most of the numbers in question are in the tens or hundreds of thousands, not tens or hundreds.

[kuronosan]

And I'm guessing it never occurred to you in all of your awesome infinite wisdom that people here were also speaking in terms of kilobytes (which is kb) by saying "It's only using 90k". Which, obviously, unless you're a total fucking moron, means they were using 90,000kb.

[Correction]

And I'm guessing it never occurred to you in all of your awesome infinite wisdom that people here were also speaking in terms of kilobytes (which is kb) by saying "It's only using 90k". Which, obviously, unless you're a total fucking moron, means they were using 90,000kb.

Math is hard!

90,000 kilobytes is less confusing when you just write 90M. Writing 90K to anybody remotely computer literate sounds like 90 kilobytes.

[Cephius]

And I'm guessing it never occurred to you in all of your awesome infinite wisdom that people here were also speaking in terms of kilobytes (which is kb) by saying "It's only using 90k". Which, obviously, unless you're a total fucking moron, means they were using 90,000kb.

Math is hard!

90,000 kilobytes is less confusing when you just write 90M. Writing 90K to anybody remotely computer literate sounds like 90 kilobytes.

quoted for truth, learn computing terminology or gtfo

[Akiyama]

I sort of figured saying "90k" or something meant "90,000" >.> That's just the way I understood it. Also, if we were saying it used 90KB, wouldn't we say "90KB"? Bah. Stop worrying about computer terminology when you can't see the possibilities of what the person may have meant.

Mine uses 109K as it says on my taskmanager. Translated: 109,000. Happy?

[Izzy]

I sort of figured saying "90k" or something meant "90,000" >.> That's just the way I understood it. Also, if we were saying it used 90KB, wouldn't we say "90KB"? Bah. Stop worrying about computer terminology when you can't see the possibilities of what the person may have meant.

Mine uses 109K as it says on my taskmanager. Translated: 109,000. Happy?

I'll post and not be a jerk.

I did think when you typed 109K, that you meant 109 kilobytes. I was confused and jealous that you got your firefox down to so little memory usage. Then I realized you meant 109 thousand kilobytes and it all made sense. For people who do deal with k, K, KB, m, MB and so on all the time, it is a bit confusing Q_Q.

[Akiyama]

I sort of figured saying "90k" or something meant "90,000" >.> That's just the way I understood it. Also, if we were saying it used 90KB, wouldn't we say "90KB"? Bah. Stop worrying about computer terminology when you can't see the possibilities of what the person may have meant.

Mine uses 109K as it says on my taskmanager. Translated: 109,000. Happy?

I'll post and not be a jerk.

I did think when you typed 109K, that you meant 109 kilobytes. I was confused and jealous that you got your firefox down to so little memory usage. Then I realized you meant 109 thousand kilobytes and it all made sense. For people who do deal with k, K, KB, m, MB and so on all the time, it is a bit confusing Q_Q.

I posted a screenshot. How could that be confusing? Sorry, I guess I can see where you are coming from. D: I should have said 109,000K. My bad.

[Correction]

FF3 'standing still'

30MB

amazon, myspace, cnn, youtube, bgboards loaded in separate tabs

157 MB

First four tabs closed (just bg boards open), waited 60 seconds

70 MB

closed app, reopened and loaded only bgboards

32 MB

Something is still awry with Firefox's memory usage. This is the issue I'd have hoped they worked out in a major revision number. Guess the devs felt memory leaks aren't important.

[Mayareira]

Uses around 105-120 megabytes of memory on mac os x. Slightly higher than 2.0.
Pretty good browser so far but to be honest I am a little more impressed by Opera 9.5 at the moment.

[octopus]

Wait, maybe I don't understand what a memory leak is. What you described above is probably just firefox caching a few things in memory. If you keep opening and closing the same pages in tabs you described above, and memory usage keeps increasing and not recycle the cache, then we have a memory leak.

Edit: this is replying to Correction's post

[kuronosan]

I'm computer literate, build computers, all that other shit, and even I still managed to deduce that logically he meant 90k as in 90,000 kilobytes.

Of course, instead of being such a fucking jerk you could easily ask them if they mean 90kb or 90,000kb instead of acting like they're the idiots. If you know better, it makes you a fucking moron for needing them to say it your way without using your common sense.