| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Firefox: Heat and the CPU usage problem | |
|
||
| Time: 13:11 EST/18:11 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Firefox has a CPU usage issue and, consequently, can cause overheating problems in some laptops, particularly ultraportables. That's what I've found over the last couple of years. But don't take my word for it. This is documented on a Mozilla support page entitled "Firefox consumes a lot of CPU resources." The page states: "At times, Firefox may require significant CPU [central processing unit] resources in order to download, process, and display Web content." And forum postings like this one about a Dell Netbook are not uncommon: "Mini9 would get way too hot." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 197 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:57:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at 11/22/2009 4:52:21 PM |
| I strongly recommend to every customer that I have that uses a notebook computer to use a laptop cooler for longer life. I suppose I should just recommend to not use Firefox as the fire part is to be taken literally. |
| #2 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 11/22/2009 5:14:21 PM |
|
First we were told that FF/Moz were so secure and next it was that it had such great performance.
Neither is true and the best, safest and smoothest online experience continues to be Internet Explorer 8. Synthetic JS bencmarks aside, side by side comparisons of validated sites we have written demonstrate in the browser that IE 8 is better. I am certain IE 9 will be good for devs and users alike. |
| #3 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at 11/22/2009 10:56:04 PM |
|
Keep that sucker off your lap!!
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_CPU_usage #2 blah blah blah... FireFox is bad blah blah blah and slow blah blah blah... seriously maybe your elite team should get together with avenger's elite team so that you both can produce really elite numbers to impress us all. As for the javascript benchmarks... with Microsoft coming out and announcing that javascript performance is in fact important (and crap in IE) you too will slowly change your tune to announce the same... once IE JS performance stops being so bad. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141096/IE9_will_close_performance_gap_Microsoft_says And the good news is that IE9 now scores 32/100 rather than the horrible 24/100 for IE8! 33% improvement! It's time to celebrate :) |
| #4 By 16797 (65.93.31.186) at 11/23/2009 12:15:34 AM |
|
#3 IE7 and IE8 have both improved JavaScript preformance, so nothing new there with IE9. What are you trying to say?
Having proper (fully compliant CSS2.1) box model was certainly more important for IE8 so it obviously was given higher priority than even better JavaScript performance. Priorities, as simple as that. It's not like they haven't improved JS performance at all. As for the Acid3, I don't think they even aim to score 100% on it with IE9, because, again it is a question of priorities and I just don't see SVG that important in that time frame (show me any important SVG-rich web sites). Nice to have, but not as important as HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, security, even that DirectX thing for faster and smoother page rendering, etc. We'll see, I guess :) |
| #5 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 11/23/2009 1:02:14 AM |
|
#3, Show me where what I wrote is not true?
Firefox has proven to be the exact opposite of what it was reported to be. It is not efficient and it is not smooth and that matters a lot more than pure synthetic benchmarks. The same is true of systems, cars, planes and boats and anything subject to any engineering discipline. "Smooth" is the experience we always go for - above any other sense we try to deliver. How is my sharing that objective and an opinion about it so much of a problem? How is pointing out the truth about Firefox so wrong? And in defense of that team, yeah, they are elite. They're amazing, really and I am blessed to have them. I think that is true of any business owner and how they see their people. You seem like such a bitter fellow and that's sad. It really is. I hope you find something to be upbeat about. |
| #6 By 12071 (124.171.4.239) at 11/23/2009 2:47:21 AM |
|
#5 Ok...
"Neither is true..." - Secure - http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox35.html Is it flawless? No. Secure? All known vulnerabilities has been fixed - so by that definition at least it is currently secure. Is it never going to have a vulnerability ever again? No, but that's not what makes something secure and I'd say it's close to impossible to make something secure for eternity. - Performance - http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/performance/ - http://lifehacker.com/5395555/browser-speed-tests-the-windows-7-results - http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/results.action?key=2SiV (those are my results on FireFox - feel free to run your own benchmark, it'll only take 5 minutes) "...and the best, safest and smoothest online experience continues to be Internet Explorer 8." - Best - subjective - Safest - subjective - Smoothest - subjective So whilst being subjective isn't necessarily equivalent to a lie - after all I'm quite certain that you fully believe in what you are saying - it doesn't make it true either, it simply makes it subjective. And heck if you want subjective, here's one for you: http://www.technologygear.net/which-is-the-best-browser-ie8-chrome-safari-or-firefox-31.html "How is pointing out the truth about Firefox so wrong?" It's not... that's why I said to "Keep that sucker off your lap!!". If however you're offering your own biased opinions and subjective comments and attempting to convey those as being the truth then I'm allowed to correct those - heck, I'm even allowed to offer up my own biased opinions and subjective comments and claim those to be the truth! "You seem like such a bitter fellow and that's sad. It really is. I hope you find something to be upbeat about." It's funny how that same sentiment applies to you and your views of non-Microsoft software. Maybe it's not so funny after all, maybe it is sad as you said. |
| #7 By 218115 (65.90.202.10) at 11/23/2009 6:47:20 AM |
| I run NOSCRIPT when browsing with FF, and NOFRY when downloading. |
| #8 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 11/23/2009 7:32:59 AM |
|
#6, "Subjective" - exactly.
That is exactly my point and it is and that is perhaps the most important point I was driving at with my post at #5. As things run in the browser and in the real-world, subjective JS benchmarks tell only a small part of the story. In the browser, and at the desk, or lap, IE 8 delivers a smoother experience. Until FF/Moz leverage Microsoft's securable objects and UIPI, as both IE 7/8 do (protected mode) and Google does (their sand box), it will be less secure and less safe to use than IE 7/8, or Chrome. |
| #9 By 29664 (38.116.145.60) at 11/23/2009 8:17:32 AM |
|
I don't notice any SIGNIFICANT performance differences. Bottom line for me is I like Firefox's add-ons FAR better than the IE add-ons. I don't care for the interface IE gives me compared to Firefox with the add-ons I load.
Firefox may be a gas guzzler compared to IE but, I'm more comfortable in it. IE has a long way to go. Firefox has been quite stable. There are a few multimedia sites that don't do as well but, half of that is the site's old code and the other half is solved with yet another magical add-on that lets me designate certain sites to load via the IE engine. No need to switch browsers. Just hit an icon in FF and all is solved. This is something like 1% of sites I visit. As for security, When I last ran IE I was also forced to run ad-aware nearly every day. It would collect all sorts of garbage.. not just cookies. When I switched.. ad-aware found nothing. Still true if I even bother anymore. MSFT dropped the ball at a critical time. IE may be better now (compared to itself) in some respects but, I see no reason to switch. |
| #10 By 12071 (124.171.4.239) at 11/23/2009 8:21:29 AM |
|
#4 "What are you trying to say?"
That Lloyd's opinions constantly reflect Microsoft current view of the world. When Microsoft considers something to be unimportant so does Lloyd, a few months later when they announce that they have indeed fallen behind Lloyd starts the pom poms up talking about the next version which will focus on that previously unimportant feature. "Priorities, as simple as that." No-one is claiming otherwise - and you cannot achieve everything in one hit, it's an evolutionary process. "As for the Acid3, I don't think they even aim to score 100% on it with IE9" And they don't need to - but don't claim to be some better browser when tested against a common set of web standards that have been finalized for some time your browser comes out at the bottom or very close to the bottom of the list. Beating NetFront (PSP and PS3 browser engine) doesn't make you better than anyone but NetFront. "show me any important SVG-rich web sites" There you have the classic chicken-egg problem now don't you. There's plenty of examples of things in the past which you could not live without today that at the time you could make the same argument. And SVG only counts for 4 of the tests...meaning that you can skip SVG and still get 96/100. "HTML5, CSS3" Oh don't worry - Lloyd has already dismissed HTML5 in the past when the topic came up. Things will change once Microsoft start adopting it though... which is what I was saying to begin with. |
| #11 By 12071 (124.171.4.239) at 11/23/2009 8:24:46 AM |
|
#8 "subjective JS benchmarks tell only a small part of the story"
We'll see how that opinion changes once IE's JS stops sucking. "In the browser, and at the desk, or lap, IE 8 delivers a smoother experience" - in your opinion. #9 FireFox has some brilliant addons - not just for end users but also for developers. |
| #12 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 11/23/2009 8:49:53 AM |
|
Chris, I don't think anybody is saying JS isn't important. I do think that some of the advantages are overrated but I've had a problem with IE's JS engine for a while.
They are putting significant engineering resources behind it in IE9. Ketchum is right, they have been prioritizing their development teams to fight the closest fires. The changes in security, isolation, rendering, etc. over their past two versions, while mainly transparent to users, has required a significant amount o resources. They've just started working on IE 9 and already what they've thrown together so far seems promising: http://channel9.msdn.com/tags/IE-9/ I use both Firefox and IE8 atm. IMO Both are steaming piles of crap. However, I expect what makes them trash is Flash not their underlying code. Having written some really JS heavy code it's obvious FF handles large amounts of data stored in JS much faster than IE. I'd like to see that change. But, as someone who writes web apps that's probably 5% of the pages I put out (where it's noticable). I am happy to have that 5% of my code run a little slower on IE to see the changes they've pushed out lately. |
| #13 By 23275 (172.16.10.199) at 11/23/2009 3:46:45 PM |
|
#11, "HTML5, CSS3"
Oh don't worry - Lloyd has already dismissed HTML5 in the past when the topic came up. Things will change once Microsoft start adopting it though... which is what I was saying to begin with. No, that is not the case. What I have said that there is no spec for HTML 5 (yet) and that it is really big and that Microsoft is on record saying they want to advance specific portions of the spec forward now - as opposed to waiting for the entire spec to be finalized. In this context, MS, along with others, is pushing ahead with HTML 5 faster and harder than is reported. You know this to be what I have written. Why represent it differently? |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/24/2009 9:51:11 AM |
|
#13: Until FF/Moz leverage Microsoft's securable objects and UIPI, as both IE 7/8 do (protected mode) and Google does (their sand box), it will be less secure and less safe to use than IE 7/8, or Chrome.
You keep saying that as if it were true. Meanwhile, MS is once again telling everyone to disable javascript in IE due to the latest driveby download exploit. You insist on spreading this fiction that FF is less secure because it doesn't use these spiffy MS technologies that don't even protect IE. Just like you used to preach about UAC and how it will save the world. Then, after UAC fails to stop most malware, MS starts saying it isn't a valid security mechanism and you start parroting the exact same line moments later. Like I've said before, you're a man of successive sincereties, each more sincere than the last. |
| #15 By 47914 (75.150.156.89) at 11/24/2009 10:20:31 AM |
| #14, How about a comment about the topic? |
| #16 By 10557 (71.185.157.43) at 11/24/2009 10:35:54 AM |
|
Latch and Chris_Kabuki, I hear lots of tears... but as mirt said, how about a comment about the topic (that Firefox has longstanding CPU over-utilization problems)?
Firefox has a long way to go; and beyond Latch's FUD (#14) about IE's Protected Mode capacities (which works best with UAC enabled and an Antivirus tool), Chrome is surprisingly most responsive in cranking out worthwhile version updates. I prefer IE8 (64-bit) cuz it LACKS Flash support but leverages more computer resources to drive a better user experience. Once Adobe releases a 64-bit Flash player, then everybody will cheer 64-bit flavors of their favorite browsers ... which Firefox officially lags behind, too. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/24/2009 10:51:56 AM |
|
#15,16: How about a comment about the topic?
I'd rather follow ketchum's lead. He's OT by slagging Firefox's security and performance and going on about how IE is better, and not really talking about the topic at all. Strange how you would call me out for something he started in post #2. Why is it that you felt the need to say something to me, but not him? You know, because otherwise it makes you both look like ketchum's poodles. |
| #18 By 47914 (75.150.156.89) at 11/24/2009 11:08:17 AM |
| #17 Funny, I thought CPU usage (overheating) was related to performance, as ketchum mentioned in his post. I read that as "on topic". Can you read? Still no comment about the topic? |
| #19 By 23275 (172.16.10.199) at 11/24/2009 11:25:14 AM |
|
Look at this crap: Firefox hopes to one-up IE with fast graphics
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10403604-264.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1 The article goes on about new graphics acceleration technologies that will appear in IE 9 and FF/Moz and the guys claims that FF/Moz will get there first. Ok, fine. His opinion is fine. EXCEPT... The the FF/Moz evangelist and the author of the post, FAIL TO EMPHASIZE that the technologies behind this are all from MICROSOFT, REGARDLESS of which browser company enables them. Direct2D and DirectWrite movable, resizable graphics showed more than twice as fast, dropping from about 11 milliseconds to less than 4 milliseconds. (so SVG support in IE 9 will be killer!). It's this kind of nonsense that simply astounds. Most people won't read enough, or follow through and end up crediting FF/Moz and Chrome with capabilities that did not originate with them. |
| #20 By 2960 (68.100.201.101) at 11/24/2009 12:02:33 PM |
|
I'm quite happy with FireFox and will continue to use it.
Phlllllltttttttt :) |
| #21 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/24/2009 12:09:56 PM |
|
#19: Funny, I thought CPU usage (overheating) was related to performance, as ketchum mentioned in his post. I read that as "on topic". Can you read? Still no comment about the topic?
LOL the use of the one word 'performance' means he was on topic about a CPU overheating issue? His usage was in the context of how FF supposedly has not very good performance. Your reply doesn't pass the smell test. Wait, I know! I used the word 'javascript' in my post. When running js in the browser, it reflects on the performance of the browser, and we all know that use of 'performance' relates directly with the heat coming from the CPU (according to you), so my post was just as on topic as ketchum's by your logic. #20: Are you blind? Did you miss this bit which seems to adequately address your concerns: The performance boost from Direct2D and DirectWrite was the centerpiece of Microsoft's demonstration of Internet Explorer 9 goodies shown last week. Online maps flashed on the screen quickly and tracked mouse movements responsively; text was clearer and changed sizes more gracefully. But the day of Microsoft's demo, Mozilla evangelist Chris Blizzard had this to tweet: "Interesting that we're doing Direct2D support in Firefox as well--I'll bet we'll ship it first." Unless you're a moron in a hurry, it's plain that this is Microsoft tech. Or is Microsoft usually in the habit of showing off competitor's tech at MS's own shows?? You're just pissed that, once again, FF will enable an MS technology before MS can. |
| #22 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 11/24/2009 1:21:55 PM |
|
#22, No, I am not blind and as I pointed out, the fact that they are microsoft technologies is not addressed until much later and rather than focus on those techs, the read places the emphasis on and in favor FF.
It's subtle, but it's there and only after several paragraphs of fluff, does the article begin to introduce what is behind the capability. This is/was the point of my post. |
| #23 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/24/2009 2:31:10 PM |
|
#23: It's subtle, but it's there and only after several paragraphs of fluff, does the article begin to introduce what is behind the capability.
Who cares? Using the GPU for 2D has been talked about for years and years. It's not like it's some stunning achievement that MS should be given a parade and a cookie for. MS supplies the infrastructure (being the OS and all), and everything on top uses those layers if they choose to. I don't stand up and salute MS every time I use the computer just because they implemented a mouse driver 25 years ago and a TCP/IP stack 15 years ago. |
| #24 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at 11/24/2009 4:48:05 PM |
|
#16 "I hear lots of tears..."
You hear lots of tears? As they're coming out of your eyes? As they're hitting a loud surface? Just how good is your hearing? I applaud you sir! "but as mirt said, how about a comment about the topic (that Firefox has longstanding CPU over-utilization problems)?" I did comment on topic champ (#2) - I even provided a link direct to the page describing all the known issues with CPU usage including the various scenarios in which they occur - as it only happens in certain scenarios. You on the other hand mentioned nothing about the heat or cpu usage issues and instead spend more time talking about Flash and 64-bit support so how about your take your own advice hypocrite? #20 "Most people won't read enough, or follow through and end up crediting FF/Moz and Chrome with capabilities that did not originate with them." It's amazing how you know what's going to happen in the future... you really should put that skill towards picking lottery numbers, stocks etc though. No-one has credited FireFox nor Chrome with anything yet... in fact you're the one bringing this up and bitching and moaning that FireFox is going to implement this... just after comment #8 where you were telling FireFox to leverage Microsoft's technology! So which is it? Should they leverage Microsoft's technology or not? Or does it depend on what technology they leverage? Or is it only ok to leverage it AFTER Microsoft has implemented it themselves in IE? Flip flop much? #23 "the fact that they are microsoft technologies is not addressed until much later" Are you kidding? Do you need the article that's targeted at mainstream pc users to specifically point out whose technology it fundamentally is? Paragraph 1 says "Microsoft showed off some browser technology", Paragraph 2 says "They're built into Windows 7, and Microsoft is bringing them to Windows Vista but not Windows XP" - sure they don't spell it out but they don't need to - it's clear as day... well to everyone but you! |
| #25 By 13997 (71.193.149.254) at 11/24/2009 7:19:55 PM |
|
#1 "I strongly recommend to every customer that I have that uses a notebook computer to use a laptop cooler for longer life."
No... Here is the basic concept... Most Laptop Coolers use Fans to pull heat away from the bottom of the Laptop. The problem is that most of the laptops produced in the last 5 years have intake fans on the BOTTOM of the laptop. So when you place a cooler sucking air away from the laptop under a laptop that is trying to suck air from the bottom of the laptop, it basically starves the laptops built in fans and cooling system. As you might guess under 'non-load' circumstances this is not noticeable, as you may even see a few degress of temperature drop as the 'active' cooling of the fans is not tyring to shove a lot of air. However, under load, the temperatures rise significantly and will shutdown and fry the laptop as the cooler is starving the system's designed airflow. You can be smart about laptops and laptop coolers, like getting a cooler that can be flipped to 'blow' air under the laptop; but blanket statements telling users to just get laptop coolers is foolish. The majority of laptops are very well designed to keep themselves cool properly. The better 'recommendation' to users is to have their laptop cleaned at least once a year if not every six months and have the fans and the exhaust ducts cleaned, as this is the #1 cause of laptop overheating and failure. If you don't know how to clean your laptop's fans/vents properly or they are not easily accessible, find a dealer that does. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 197 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:57:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
