ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

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

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

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 26 through 50 of 360
Prev | Last | Next

The time now is 10:31:56 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#26 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 11/24/2009 8:35:42 PM

#25, I think you're missing the point.

Take Google's sandbox. It's using technologies available to all devs that are nagtive to Windows Vista and Windows 7. For months it was held out as though Google had some super secret sauce that was unique to it.

Respected magazines reviewing the various browsers, credited Chrome with having uber great security. In the same article, IE was critisized for the same thing.

This latest round is the same sort of thing. Even the title credits FF/Moz and not until the end are the detail revealed and when MS as you state is said to have shown off some new technologies, it is presented in a general context. The author should have properly linked the two from the outset and made it clear that new technologies developed by Microsoft, were available for all devs (just as with the security). As I said, it is subtle, but the twist is there and it's sloppy at best.

#27 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 11/24/2009 8:46:52 PM

#26, Absolutely right, Net!

We preach this to all our customers with great regularity. All builds we put in where there is carpet on the floor, we offer and suggest risers to keep systems elevated. Where they do not opt for this, we are candid that if the systems are full of fiber and dirt and we have to service them, we will not warranty for the full four years (the normal period). If they are kept clean and off the floor, they'll last years longer than those that are not.

#28 By 9589 (75.183.116.232) at 11/24/2009 11:15:08 PM

I can just see the Bing vs Firefox ads now, a la Microsoft vs Apple, "Firefox will cause your computer to catch on fire!" lol

You just can't make this stuff up - too funny . . .

By the way, where is TL? Bing!

This post was edited by jdhawk on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 23:15.

#29 By 13997 (71.193.149.254) at 11/25/2009 4:29:21 AM

#22 #24 Friend there is so much you 'know' but don't 'understand'...

"just pissed that, once again, FF will enable an MS technology before MS can. "

Implement, not really, since IE9 has been geared for Direct2D and is running it internally for a while, yes even longer than the 'couple' of developers writing the rendering Direct2D portion for Firefox.

As for a shipping product, again, don't be so sure on this, as the Direct2D work on Firefox is not currently part of the main product and is a side project by a couple of developers and are having trouble moving fully over to Direct2D because of inconsistencies with how Firefox renders content. Firefox SHOULD get to Direct2D, but even its first round won't be a complete implementation.

As Firefox stands now, the Direct2D 'upgrade' to the rendering is only beating IE8 about 5%, and IE8 doesn't use Direct2D. (Also of note, this brings rendering back to the performance table for browsers and people are NOTICING that IE8 renders faster than Firefox most of the time. So if people are wanting pages to display 'fast', rather than run hyperbolic JavaScript calculations that are nonsense, IE8 is the faster browser.)

"Using the GPU for 2D has been talked about for years and years"

Um, the GPU has been used for 2D rendering since the 80s, and made a large shove into the PC world with the IBM 8514 with the first mainstream accelerated 2D GPU. It later was followed by ATI's Ultra and Vantage cards that were significantly cheaper and faster versions with 8514 compatibility but designed to be WINDOWS 2D GPU accelerated video cards. You could buy these around 1990-91...

The whole industry of Video cards during the 90s was 2D GPU accelerated cards designed mainly for the Windows UI.

Direct2D is not about 2D GPU, it is about using 3D GPU concepts and rendering concepts for basic 2D UI elements.

#30 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/25/2009 9:29:00 AM

#30: Implement, not really, since IE9 has been geared for Direct2D and is running it internally for a while, yes even longer than the 'couple' of developers writing the rendering Direct2D portion for Firefox.

How do you know this? You seem to possess the same magical ability that Ketchum has, where he appears to have knowledge of internal MS plans & processes. He either has hooks deep within MS (which wouldn't surprise me considering his cheerleading), or he's just gassing. How do you know what you just claimed?

Also of note, this brings rendering back to the performance table for browsers and people are NOTICING that IE8 renders faster than Firefox most of the time.

What people? Where? Which sites? Not any that have javascript, surely.

Direct2D is not about 2D GPU, it is about using 3D GPU concepts and rendering concepts for basic 2D UI elements.

You know what I meant. Or was an opportunity to be pedantic too good to pass up?

#31 By 241766 (216.191.227.68) at 11/25/2009 10:30:13 AM

The only thing this thread is missing is NotParker dumping a half-dozen links to QuickTime bugs from days gone by.

#30: "Also of note, this brings rendering back to the performance table for browsers and people are NOTICING that IE8 renders faster than Firefox most of the time. So if people are wanting pages to display 'fast', rather than run hyperbolic JavaScript calculations that are nonsense, IE8 is the faster browser."

Do you have any references to any sources of proof for this statement? If so, please provide them so we can look at them for ourselves and draw our own conclusions.

#32 By 13997 (71.193.149.254) at 11/25/2009 10:33:56 AM

#31 "How do you know this? You seem to possess the same magical ability that Ketchum has, where he appears to have knowledge of internal MS plans & processes."

Magical ability to listen to the Microsoft developers or read what they have been writing about? There are even videos on IE9 on Channel9 and other sites that talk about this specifically.

This isn't inside information, it is called paying attention or basic reading comprehension.

"What people? Where? Which sites? Not any that have javascript, surely. "

Go check out Betanews for one or any other site in the last few months that have measured actual USE of the freaking browser than esoteric scripting and other tests that have very little to do with the basic performance the end user sees.

"You know what I meant. Or was an opportunity to be pedantic too good to pass up? "

Whether you realized how stupid what you were saying really isn't the point in general public conversations as a lot of users 'will not' and it just confuses the conversation for people that are less tech minded, especially when what you said was really fatuous.

#33 By 13997 (71.193.149.254) at 11/25/2009 10:48:41 AM

#32 - "Do you have any references to any sources of proof for this statement"

There is even one on BetaNews (which usually is very unkind in performance reviews of IE).

As I mention above, there are also a lot of non-mainstream benchmark tests out there that do measure actual speeds the end user sees by using the browser that encapsulates things like display and rendering speeds instead of running precision math scripts over and over that are basically worthless for 99.99% of all web sites and users.

The trick is you have to notice/search for these type of benchmark reviews that don't just run the same SunSpider and other generic benchmarks that really have nothing to do with what the end user experiences.

This is imporant when sadly most benchmark reviews put a lot of weight on these bad metrics even though there is often only a few milliseconds of difference between all browsers - and users don't perceive the world in a few milliseconds if the page drawing is taking seconds longer on their screen.

#34 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 11/25/2009 12:30:43 PM

"and users don't perceive the world in a few milliseconds "

On the contrary:

All our senses, eyes in this case, record and the brain process time measured in milliseconds; the fact that these informations are not necessarily always transferred as a conscious input does not mean anything. Without getting in more complicate, specialistic and out of the context analysis let us just say that contrary to what people think the vast majority of the input we act upon is unconcious.

#35 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 11/26/2009 1:20:52 AM

Fritz, Microsoft did exactly this and for the most visited sites on the web, they shot in-browser films and used a stop-watch. The published results reflected that IE 8 was the better browser and offered a more consistent and faster experience on Windows.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/videos.aspx?mname=IE8_Perf_Test2

#36 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 11/26/2009 6:51:53 AM

#35: Interesting video Iketchum, thanks.

My comment was not about which browser is faster but about what the body perceive and what does not.

As far as what browser is better I believe that technicalities aside is just a matter of personal preferences.
One thing is sure though: without Firefox MS would not have felt compelled to keep developing IE so for a person with an agnostic approach like me FF is extremely important.

#37 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 11/26/2009 11:21:14 AM

#36, I don't know that I agree with the popularly held belief that FF/Moz development is what compelled Microsoft to upgrade IE, or develop for it.

I think a lot of things drove this. As the demand for features, features, features became accompanied by demands for security, security, security... and the always on, wider band Internet connections exposed computers in new ways, browser and system security played a big role and COM/DCOM/RMI handling in SP2 was the result along with software DEP.

All that security development in IE is ignored - where real security features were added, while user features took a back seat. In the same way Windows itself reflected this change in emphasis, until the secure development tools were brought online and procedures for using them evolved (The SDL that no one can argue has not produced results).

OS development was delayed, too - or should we call it delayed at all - I mean, a more secure Windows was shipped and the basis for very secure future versions were set down.

SMB over SSL, MAPI and RPC over HTTPS are other examples and all of these were developed during that time. All are examples of the emphasis. I think the next driver was in how the web was used and will evolve. Asynchronous web based technologies to reduce, or eliminate the flashing associated with post back events. Microsoft has been a real innovator here and provided(s) tools and examples around this. Their own OWA in front of Exchange is the first example of the use of the technologies they developed and it has continued.

Parallel to this the LAMP evolved and a lot of scripting guys familiar with Action Script and JS quickly adapted PHP and because it was familiar and cheap, a lot of very script heavy sites began to pop up. The same guys, constrained by that very stack, slowly began to move to .NET and it worked well in both ways - .NET shops building business apps benefitted from JQuery and guys who knew JS and PHP well. An exchange took place and each side influenced the other. That process continues today and MVC for ASP.NET - example here, www.webeca.com reflect the teaming of these camps.

There were a lot of influences and I think resource allocation and practical considerations also contributed to what appeared to be a slow down in IE dev. Since WFC/SL/WPFe have a browser engine, RIA's and Rich Media on those frameworks will be the result and a newer, richer web will come out of that. Since the browser is still there, parts of HTML 5 will move more quickly and perhaps a decent spec can be agreed to - likely no and the persistent and stupid arguments will continue. I do assess that only those companies that are open to all and blend both are going to succeed. As a business man, too, I see this and I know I can find top notch designers and JQuery fluent guys a lot more easily and for less cost than I can find classically trained method oriented engineers.

#38 By 4240821 (213.139.195.162) at 10/27/2023 8:55:38 AM