Muchas gracias por la muy amable explicación, bien claramente ilustrada con esos “shots” de su pantalla. This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by migongo. But, in my humble opinion, I would blame the problem to any missed tweak in the “about:config” settings. I notice you have not installed the “Hotfix for Firefox bug mitigation” extension (see screenshot) Try it in case of whatever conflict with any of your extensions or plugins.
However even this shouldn’t be a problem, since I always been using 6 of the 7 offered processes. How many processes have you chosen (Settings – General – Performance – Processes content limit) ? They say the most you choose the most RAM will be used. Never experienced a huge memory consumption beyond 1 GB, except in case of more than 15 open tabs and more than 3 hours surfing, in average. I have 16 GB of RAM in this machine and 8 GB in the Windows 7 + Linux PC, so the amount of memory taken by Waterfox is not a real problem for me, but I think it is worth remarking upon, as others might have considerably less RAM in their machines than I use Waterfox as my default browser since long time ago (as long as Firefox Quantum refuses many of my API extensions) in both of my Windows systems: 8.1 Pro (64) with 6 GB DDR3 RAM, and 10 Pro v. So being used or just being turned on made little difference.įirefox takes considerably less RAM and Chrome even less, as you can see, for example, in the attached screenshot (I was using the Mac’s “Activity Monitor” built-in application when I made this screenshot). When using it to browse, it was taking maybe another 20 – 30 MB.
I use Waterfox as my default browser in my Mac and in my Windows 7 and Linux PC, and yesterday I was reminded of that older discussion, when I noticed that Waterfox, even when turned on but not being used at the time, was taking over 3/4 of GB of RAM. This has already been treated, along with several other issues, in an older thread that I have been unable to find, so I am starting this one on a more specific issue than what was discussed in that one:
0 kommentar(er)
