ordovician
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,625
Firefox is choppier than both Chrome and Safari for me on my Ideapad S10 when viewing flash-heavy stuff.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
A Year With Google Chrome
- Thread starter Terry Olaes
- Start date
Firefox is choppier than both Chrome and Safari for me on my Ideapad S10 when viewing flash-heavy stuff.
Probably because Adobe doesn't know how to write a plugin to save their lives :/
Agreed, I was just hoping someone might have some voodoo to make Flash not destroy my internet browsers. I think it's actually worse in Windows 7 (RC7100) than Vista 64.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
What website are you guys going to that are so flash-heavy to the point of "thrashing" your browsers? I mean, the template I'm going to use for my portfolio site is entirely flash-based and runs fine, full-screen @ 1920x1080.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
Ding. I can play any of the ripped files from Hulu or Youtube just fine on my Netbook when I play it back locally and use VLC...
But if I stream it, even in the case of Youtube where I can let the entire video finish loading before I do playback, it lags like hell.
The problem is the Adobe Plugin. Firefox also doesn't seem to handle it as gracefully even though Opera uses the exact same plugin as Firefox.
2 days and I've already had Firefox peak at 950MB with less than 25 tabs open at any one given moment. Currently have 14 tabs open, down from 21. Memory usage went from 454MB to 429MB. 7 tabs closed and it only freed 25MB. Ah well. I'll keep at it. One week, as promised.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
I really wish I knew what it is... but this is something I've been able to duplicate since version 1.5 and across multiple versions and installs of Windows. The worrisome part is that this is the memory consumption with cache completely disabled and tabs being closed often.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
Look what you're saying. "Less than 25 tabs open"? C'mon, web devs have that many tabs open at any given time, and more than enough RAM to spare. Most users, though? Nah. 1-5 tabs. As for the lag when playing back Youtube videos - is there something wrong with your PC? I'm on Youtube very often, and playback seems absolutely fine to me. It's even good using Firefox 3.5.3 on my fiancee's laptop with a Pentium M and 512mb of RAM.
This whole "One week, as promised." thing is all for nothing, man. Whatever you're trying to prove is constantly having eyes rolled at it, because there's nothing to prove. Anyone can open 8 billion tabs over the course of a week on whichever browser they want, never closing it and say, "OMG look, it takes up a lot of RAM!!!11one1!two?" Do you know what's gonna happen at the end of your week? You're gonna post your results, and we're gonna be here saying, "ok...?".
But whatever you'd like to do.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
Look what you're saying. "Less than 25 tabs open"? C'mon, web devs have that many tabs open at any given time, and more than enough RAM to spare. Most users, though? Nah. 1-5 tabs. As for the lag when playing back Youtube videos - is there something wrong with your PC? I'm on Youtube very often, and playback seems absolutely fine to me. It's even good using Firefox 3.5.3 on my fiancee's laptop with a Pentium M and 512mb of RAM.
This whole "One week, as promised." thing is all for nothing, man. Whatever you're trying to prove is constantly having eyes rolled at it, because there's nothing to prove. Anyone can open 8 billion tabs over the course of a week on whichever browser they want, never closing it and say, "OMG look, it takes up a lot of RAM!!!11one1!two?" Do you know what's gonna happen at the end of your week? You're gonna post your results, and we're gonna be here saying, "ok...?".
But whatever you'd like to do.
If you had actually bothered to read any of my posts before responding like a jacktard, I close tabs on a VERY REGULAR BASIS and the memory consumption does not reduce accordingly. This was my original point. I never said I was never going to close any tabs. To quote myself: "I can use Firefox. Use it for a week straight so it gobbles up memory. Shut down all tabs but one, a blank tab with no history... and it will still consume 500MB of ram."
"As for the lag when playing back Youtube videos - is there something wrong with your PC?" - Had you bothered to read my post, this was in reference to the NETBOOK. The ATOM CPU cannot do h264 streaming only because Flash is a piece of shit. The same files run fine locally. Search "atom cpu hulu" and you'll find page after page after page of complaints.
The reason I'm running this little experiment is to document what I've been able to duplicate for a long time now. Reduced to 7 tabs from 14 since my last post. Memory usage? 397MB. Closing 7 tabs resulted in a 32MB reduction in the memory footprint. This is utterly fucking shameful.
This is my typical browsing habit: All links open in new tab, any links from that tab open in new tab. This results in no history within each tab. No back or forward. When I am done with that page, I kill the tab. Firefox still bloats like a pig in a full grain silo.
If you want to read back even further in this thread, but since I know you won't bother, I'll just restate myself.
FF's memory management sucks. It doesn't free up what is no longer needed after closing down tabs. Compared with Chrome, even if it uses more memory total, at least _all_ of the memory relating to that tab is completely freed up due to its multiple process setup. People are crying BS because I explained what I've run into. I'm doing this to demonstrate that... yeah. This does happen and it's a problem.
I'm continually surprised how ignorant a lot of people on here tend to be. One thread, people go "LOL! You bother to shut down your computer" while other threads people are saying "LOL! You leave an application open for a week!" Like anyone's habits but your own are inappropriate. Get over yourselves.
One example I mentioned in how FF's memory management can be a problem is situations where low income people cannot afford to buy better systems. I consider anyone at 512MB or over to be in a VERY fortunate position. Yeah, that got me a few snide remarks here. Guess what, people? We are *NOT* even remotely close to a notable minority when it comes to the habits of computer usage! So bringing up an example of what *is* typically seen in my line of work... I've been responded to with the following:
1) Why is this a big deal? We have plenty of memory.
2) You leave your computer on? You don't shut down?
3) Why would you need to shut down?
4) It runs fine on my setup. Something's wrong with yours.
5) It doesn't run fine on my setup. You're not a typical user.
6) You're a typical user. You don't use computers the way we do.
I might as well read slashdot at -2 threshold if this is the way discourse on actual, common tech issues, is going to be on here.
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
Well, I mean - the fact that you have been responded to in those types of ways PROBABLY means something. So I think it is YOU who needs to get over yourself. I don't see why you're getting pissy at us as if WE are the one's with some sort of agenda when it is CLEARLY YOU who wants to prove something to everyone. The rest of us? We really don't give a shit. That'swhat I was trying to get at before, but was trying not to be too ass-hole-ish about it.
Anyhow, as said before - have fun running Firefox for a week straight with 8 billion open tabs.
I've been doing the same thing. Right now I have 9 tabs open (including a tab with flash loaded) and firefox is still under 100 MB of RAM. 3.5 is having no problems freeing RAM when I close tabs.
DaedalusHelios
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 2,280
But the IE and Chrome use plug-ins from Adobe. Are you saying Adobe just says screw FF?
Actually there are 2 flash plugins. An IE version, and an "everything else" version (based on the Netscape plugin architecture). The IE version used to (and probably still is) the better of the two (but IE sucks, so who cares?).
You could be getting choppiness and lag in Firefox due to its UI being that slight bit more intensive to render. Extensions and themes will also increase the load on Firefox, slowing things down even more. Since you are talking about an Atom based netbook, the slight increase in CPU requirements could very well mean the difference between smooth and choppy.
That said, I don't get any chop or lag with flash heavy pages in FF on my desktops or laptops. CPU usage spikes something fierce, but it still runs smooth.
Yeah, this.
The first time, or even first 50 times I go to a Flash site it'll display fine. The problem is I like to keep my computer on, so in less than a week the performance will go to hell. I've found the problem is actually worse on Win 7 (RC7100) than Vista 64. Since basically every site has some Flash these days, surfing any website with Flash causes any program that's using sound/video to get choppy. Part of that is the terribad integrated sound card, but it doesn't happen in Vista. FF + Adblock + Noscript helps some of that, but we're talking about Chrome here. ^^
This is why I use Chrome over FF. If you leave FF open and just swap tabs throughout the day, Chrome becomes WAY more responsive within 30 minutes due to it's memory management. When I use my browser, I just keep the thing open and browse. Why should I have to close the whole thing. It's that why tabs were invented? Catch is that in FF, you close the tab, but for some reason you don't get all the processing power back from closing the tab. You run Facebook, a number of flash and javascript stuff, have forums open as well as meebo. That's all fine until you decide, I'm done playing this game, so you close it. FF doesn't completely unload that memory back into the system, and thus it just constantly builds up. Chrome doesn't have this problem with me. I've been using it since day 1 and haven't looked back.
This is why I use Chrome over FF. If you leave FF open and just swap tabs throughout the day, Chrome becomes WAY more responsive within 30 minutes due to it's memory management. When I use my browser, I just keep the thing open and browse. Why should I have to close the whole thing. Isn't that why tabs were invented? Catch is that in FF, you close the tab, but for some reason you don't get all the processing power back from closing the tab. You run Facebook, a number of flash and javascript stuff, have forums open as well as meebo. That's all fine until you decide, I'm done playing this game, so you close it. FF doesn't completely unload that memory back into the system, and thus it just constantly builds up. Chrome doesn't have this problem with me. I've been using it since day 1 and haven't looked back.
DaedalusHelios
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 2,280
I love it when people say IE sucks without giving a reason. The latest IE works great. What do you get out of other browsers that IE cannot provide?
I don't love M$, I just don't know why browser opinions are like a religious belief to some.
I don't love M$, I just don't know why browser opinions are like a religious belief to some.
All the reasons people used to give for IE sucking are mostly still relevant. Do some web development and you'll quickly start cursing IE. Its JavaScript performance is embarrassing, for example. There is also a complete lack of features compared to Opera and Firefox. I want a full featured browser. I use it all day and night, it better be damn nice to work with. IE simply isn't.
Again, Firefox has repeatedly demonstrated BETTER MEMORY MANAGEMENT THAN CHROME, at least it does for everyone but you, apparently. It uses much less memory when browsing, and frees up *more* memory than Chrome. What you said used to be true (back in the 1.x/2.x days), but it simply isn't anymore.
Also, what on earth do you mean by "you don't get all the processing power back"? There really isn't such a thing as "processing power leaks", just memory leaks
It's incredibly slow to open up and make new tabs. I don't know about general performance, but when the first two things you do with a browser are that much slower than its competitors, it turns you off to the rest of the experience immediately.
IE8 64 is better in that regard, but still not as good as FF or Chrome, and then you're limited in other ways.
IE8 64 is better in that regard, but still not as good as FF or Chrome, and then you're limited in other ways.
Also, what on earth do you mean by "you don't get all the processing power back"? There really isn't such a thing as "processing power leaks", just memory leaks
Haha, so my terminology was incorrect. It's not quite processing power perse, but after closing some tabs, Chrome performs better on my system than FF did. Granted I haven't used FF 3.5 (this was during the 3.0 beta days) since I've stuck with Chrome for so long.
If FF fixed their memory leak problem and 3.5 runs just a snappy as Chrome then that's good. I've just gotten used to Chrome working pretty darn well for me already. Don't worry, there's no FF hate here
In the latest dev beta (which is perfectly stable for me), it syncs your bookmarks with your gmail account. Really nice feature.
this! I dont like chrome but still use it sometimes
SpeedBump613
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 761
Downloaded it...never really used it. Hmm, maybe I'll give it a once around the block for giggles.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
Open Chrome.
Open Firefox.
Pursue habits identically in both browsers for a set period.
Regularly close tabs once done, making new ones in both.
Make one new tab, no history, close all old ones.
Which will still be consuming the most memory?
The answer is NOT Chrome.
Comments like yours are the reason I'm even doing the "Run vanilla FF for a week" test here. Maybe you can tell me why 7 tabs are using 401MB? Everything I have pointed out as a constant issue with FF Memory Management, even now with 3.5.x, is happening. People will respond with "LULZOL YOUR LEAVING OPEN FOR A WEEK!"... Well, duh, yeah. It's gotta build up over time before you can demonstrate what it is that FF does. Doesn't change the fact that it does happen.
Let's try this. Firefox grabs another 10MB every time a new page or tab is opened.
Chrome grabs 12MB.
Both browsers having 10 tabs open... Then yes, your statement would be accurate because 10x10 means Firefox is consuming 100MB whereas 12x10 means Chrome is consuming 120MB.
But what I'm able to demonstrate here is what happens when you close tabs after being done. Chrome releases all 12MB grabbed for each tab because the entire process is killed. Firefox releases 9MB. We are down to 2 tabs in both browsers.
Firefox: 20MB+8MB for each tab, still lingering in the heap.
Chrome: 24MB.
For long term use... Firefox loses.
Here's a current screenshot.
http://ergh.org/misc/ffbloat.png
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
Holy hell, what is that? Windows 98?
WinXP with everything turned off. Win98 doesn't have that sort of Task Manager.
For everyone but you, the answer IS Chrome. That is what I am trying to say. Your experience is very much the exception. Various tests have repeatedly proven the exact opposite of what you are saying using the exact test that you are describing.
Check out my screenshot. As you can see, Firefox peaked at 250MB but currently with 9 tabs + flash it is hovering around 80MB. Firefox is not hogging RAM. It has no trouble whatsoever in freeing it. Mine hasn't been open as long (got a BSOD yesterday, heh), but even when its open for a week I get the exact same result.
Firefox Memory Usage
Honestly the results you are seeing remind me of the old 1.x/2.x days. Are you positive you are running 3.5?
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
"Everyone but me"? Have you even read the thread at all? There are people who have agreed with me. So I'm the one and only exception?
I'm using 3.5.1. ( screenshot: http://ergh.org/misc/ffbloat2.png ) (And now I can just wait for the howls saying I should be using 3.5.3 instead, despite people responding to me with statements saying this was ONLY an issue with 1.5 and 2.x... Let's move those goalposts! C'mon!)
Gotta love those questions at the end. How would you like it if I asked: Are you sure your computer is turned on? I mean, please. Ask a question in a way that doesn't belie what has been demonstrated before.
If my experience is such an exception... then why does everything go both ways? There's enough evidence to support BOTH of our positions without making all or nothing, everyone but you statements.
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+3.5+memory+problems&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-a">http://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+3.5+memory+problems&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a</a> Quite a number of results with people complaining about memory bloat and problems within Firefox since 3.5 was a RC.That I'm so easily able to duplicate this issue SHOULD be a concern to you if you're just going to respond in a thread making absolute statements without even sourcing a single thing you say.
I also love how people always dismiss everything that doesn't fit with their experience as the exception when they ignore that what they deal with could be an exception in of itself.
You got a BSOD? Well, that's the exception, not the norm. I haven't had a BSOD in years! Catch my drift?
Ancedotal isn't evidence unless it's in numbers. In this particular case, we're both the exception and the norm. People expressed disbelief when I said I am able to duplicate a Firefox problem with managing memory. I expressed disbelief when people threw out numbers that went contrary to my experiences. I'm running this experiment to show only what I encounter, nothing further. Now that I've been doing that, it's more excuses.
It's documented and said by many people out there. FF *DOES* have problems with releasing memory after using it for a long time. Most people don't notice these issues because they shut down and restart every night (or get a BSOD every day, heh)
stop!theradio
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,523
"Everyone but me"? Have you even read the thread at all? There are people who have agreed with me. So I'm the one and only exception?
I'm using 3.5.1. ( screenshot: http://ergh.org/misc/ffbloat2.png ) (And now I can just wait for the howls saying I should be using 3.5.3 instead, despite people responding to me with statements saying this was ONLY an issue with 1.5 and 2.x... Let's move those goalposts! C'mon!)
Gotta love those questions at the end. How would you like it if I asked: Are you sure your computer is turned on? I mean, please. Ask a question in a way that doesn't belie what has been demonstrated before.
If my experience is such an exception... then why does everything go both ways? There's enough evidence to support BOTH of our positions without making all or nothing, everyone but you statements.
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+3.5+memory+problems&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
That I'm so easily able to duplicate this issue SHOULD be a concern to you if you're just going to respond in a thread making absolute statements without even sourcing a single thing you say.
I also love how people always dismiss everything that doesn't fit with their experience as the exception when they ignore that what they deal with could be an exception in of itself.
You got a BSOD? Well, that's the exception, not the norm. I haven't had a BSOD in years! Catch my drift?
Ancedotal isn't evidence unless it's in numbers. In this particular case, we're both the exception and the norm. People expressed disbelief when I said I am able to duplicate a Firefox problem with managing memory. I expressed disbelief when people threw out numbers that went contrary to my experiences. I'm running this experiment to show only what I encounter, nothing further. Now that I've been doing that, it's more excuses.
It's documented and said by many people out there. FF *DOES* have problems with releasing memory after using it for a long time. Most people don't notice these issues because they shut down and restart every night (or get a BSOD every day, heh)
I restart the computer probably once a week, less usually. I do exit Firefox when I'm done with it (like I do with pretty much all of the programs I run.). Whatever results you're getting - are not the type of results that MOST of us are getting. 7 tabs shouldn't amount to over 400mb of RAM being used. I couldn't possibly duplicate that result unless I were to run a bunch of flash-dependent sites over multiple tabs for days (and up to a week) at a time, without closing the program. I would see those numbers as a big problem if they were achieved after only a few minutes of usage, but that's just not the case. Also, if you're pitting FF up against the latest version of Chrome, then I don't see why you're not using the latest version of FF for your test(s).
I mean, it may not make much of a difference (at least not on YOUR computer...for reasons that are obviously beyond our understanding), but it would only make sense to match latest version to latest version.I asked because of how you've altered the default theme. I didn't recognize it. Also, in 2.0 they moved the close tab buttons onto each tab, hence I was all confused. Obviously it isn't a vanilla install anymore, you've changed it, thus completely invalidating your test (I kid, I kid)
I *DID* source what I said, like 4 pages back.
I also didn't start cursing Vista for being so unstable. Catch my drift?
We're totally going in circles here, because Firefox *DOESN'T* have problems releasing memory after long periods of time. On the 4 computers I use on a regular basis (all Vista, btw), none of them have Firefox hogging memory when left running for 1-3 weeks.
I used to like FF but I think they've become worse over time. I don't care for any of FF's extensions. I just want a simple, minimalistic, easy to use browser that performs well and Chrome has been just that. What I really love about Chrome is how the address bar is also the search box. It feels more natural to use. Also, Chrome blows IE and FF out of the water when running JavaScript and for our web apps at work it makes a huge difference.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
I asked because of how you've altered the default theme. I didn't recognize it. Also, in 2.0 they moved the close tab buttons onto each tab, hence I was all confused. Obviously it isn't a vanilla install anymore, you've changed it, thus completely invalidating your test (I kid, I kid)
FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU...
Yeah, I changed some things in about:config, the tab setup is one thing I do. It's all in a text file with other things I do for every new config (of my own) for Firefox... so I can do true vanilla reinstalls without doing updates to an existing copy (the source of many, many issues, IMHO)
I *DID* source what I said, like 4 pages back.
I know. I just felt like doing what you did to me.
Vista is stable for everyone but you!
We're totally going in circles here, because Firefox *DOESN'T* have problems releasing memory after long periods of time. On the 4 computers I use on a regular basis (all Vista, btw), none of them have Firefox hogging memory when left running for 1-3 weeks.
Well, you're on Vista, people have stated that they've had issues along the lines as I have. I wonder if it could be more of a FF+WinXP issue. I don't see why as it's still the same FF codebase.
Loaded up L4D and noticed FF had shrunk a bit after the game was done. 21 tabs open, 372MB memory used. I wonder if it's weighed against existing consumption systemwise before it decides to release what it does when it does. FF does sometimes eventually release some of its heap but it's not instant. Sometimes it takes hours on my end and even then... it still holds onto a bit more than it would be using when restarting with all the tabs reloaded. I've not heard of any behaviour along these lines with FF, though.
Chrome is probably the best for you then. Honestly, I couldn't live without Firefox's extensions. I tried Chrome, but I kept missing things. Also, I absolutely hated Chrome's address bar - it was waaay to presumptuous. It kept doing its own thing when I would hit enter and not doing what I typed.
Yes, it is the same codebase, BUT they do have some differences between platforms. The theme is actually one of those.
Huh, that is a possibility. Since Vista actually uses all the system RAM, Firefox could be feeling the need to more aggressively disk cache various things instead of leaving them in RAM...
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
Experiment failed. Was reading up on the NYT Ad hijacks and went over to download the newest MalwareBytes for my cleanup toolkit... got redirected to CNet's download page which triggered a memory leak.
Went from 487MB from the moment everything blanked out to 1.4GB before it collapsed on its own. Didn't even need to endtask it. Reloaded the tabs and the same thing happened again, so I was able to duplicate that. Very weird. Unselected that one tab in the restore dialogue, no issues. Loaded the same link again. Memory leaked. Compromised page?
Funny thing was that the virtual memory size kept swelling along with everything else, that hit 1.7GB when the physical memory size hit 1.4. Checked the boot drive, my pagefile remained at a static 512MB. Heh... In the end, it barely hit 1/2 of my total available memory before it self terminated. Pretty curious a vanilla install would croak like this when my PortableFirefox install didn't. Barely what? 4 days and it collapsed on its own when I've gone more than 2 weeks without issues.
Sooooo yeah. In this case, hard to say if even a separate process per tab would have prevented the whole thing from crashing down. When it comes down to browser preference, I agree with you. Without my extensions (and god, I miss them), Chrome is pretty difficult to deal with. Doubly so in Firefox. Once enough equivalent extensions exist for Chrome, I doubt I'll be using FF anymore. (Final stat: About 480MB with all the tabs I had open sans the one that started the leak. Reloaded those tabs, currently sitting at 199MB used. 281MB difference. Still wonder why that happens.) Killing this install of Firefox and going back to my Portable version with extensions. Was painful while it lasted.
I had Chrome freeze up on me today (the entire browser). Was a bitch to try and kill with Task Manager seeing as there were like a dozen chrome.exe processes - separate processes per tab is a bandaid, not a fix
My own experiment is doing exactly what I expect. Since the BSOD, it is still under 200MB of RAM used. And this isn't with history or anything like that disabled.
I'm guessing your tinkering in about:config broke something
My own experiment is doing exactly what I expect. Since the BSOD, it is still under 200MB of RAM used. And this isn't with history or anything like that disabled.
I'm guessing your tinkering in about:config broke something
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
I had Chrome freeze up on me today (the entire browser). Was a bitch to try and kill with Task Manager seeing as there were like a dozen chrome.exe processes - separate processes per tab is a bandaid, not a fix
My own experiment is doing exactly what I expect. Since the BSOD, it is still under 200MB of RAM used. And this isn't with history or anything like that disabled.
I'm guessing your tinkering in about:config broke something
Really, really hard to say what it is if it was anything on my end as far as whatever caused the leak goes. I have essentially the same modifications between PortableFF and VanillaFF when it comes to about:config... except PFF has extensions like Noscript and Adblock. VanillaFF only had the benefit of a comprehensive HOSTS file, but nothing else.
Memory usage is consistent between both, with PortableFF taking up a bit more due to extensions... but pretty much the same behaviour.
Tried to duplicate the issue again. Purged the tabs, restarted VanillaFF clean and visited the CNet Download page for MalwareBytes again. Hung. So yeah. Something to do with that page was causing it, it seems.
So I'm back to using PortableFF again. Also helps things a lot more self contained when running it under Wine.
*grumble*
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Once it's got a decent add on for doing that thing we're not allowed to talk about I may consider switching from FF.