Author Topic: updating Firefox plugins sucks! (Read 33857 times)

Curt · « **Reply #25 on:** March 28, 2010, 05:40 PM »

- TrimAll will do the job and close again within a second. Click & Forget.

bleh75 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 28, 2010, 05:57 PM »

Nice

Ya it opened and closed so fast I wasn't sure.Sure enough all my memory usage went down thx.Good app.

What does the trimws.exe do btw thx .

J-Mac · « **Reply #27 on:** March 28, 2010, 09:40 PM »

- it actually has been corrected to 'recovery' - at least on your link's page.
-Curt (March 28, 2010, 05:27 PM)

Yeah, I was reading off the Add-0ns dialog within Firefox itself.

Thanks!

Jim

Deozaan · « **Reply #28 on:** March 29, 2010, 02:22 AM »

I recently had 9 tabs open in Chrome and the Windows Task Manager showed exactly 30 processes named "Chrome", each taking from 35 to 50 MB of RAM. Crazy!
-J-Mac (March 27, 2010, 10:59 PM)

I'm guessing you have lots of Chrome extensions? I think that each extension runs as its own "chrome.exe" process, just like each tab does. This way (at least in theory) if an extension or a tab crashes, it can be shut down without crashing the entire browser.

I currently have 3 tabs open and 7 extensions, and my PC shows that 14 Chrome processes are running. I'm not sure what the other 4 are for. But only half of those processes are using more than 10MB, none reaching 50MB, and most of the other half are well below 5MB, some even below 1MB of RAM.

J-Mac · « **Reply #29 on:** March 29, 2010, 02:30 AM »

I believe that I have 4 Chrome extensions. I had a couple of others but they didn't do much so I removed them. I have no idea what the heck all the processes are doing or why they are there. I have seen others complaining about this or similar at other forums + Google Groups but no one has any definitive answers; just speculation. As usual Google isn't talking.

Thanks!

Jim

bleh75 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 29, 2010, 03:26 PM »

Ah maybe thats it I only use the ad-block extension.lol my roomies uses like 450 mb with a bunch of extensions running and like 8 tabs open

Ouch...

Chrome runs at about 90 mb max.

Deozaan · « **Reply #31 on:** March 30, 2010, 11:23 PM »

I believe that I have 4 Chrome extensions. I had a couple of others but they didn't do much so I removed them. I have no idea what the heck all the processes are doing or why they are there. I have seen others complaining about this or similar at other forums + Google Groups but no one has any definitive answers; just speculation. As usual Google isn't talking.

Jim
-J-Mac (March 29, 2010, 02:30 AM)

Well I just accidentally stumbled upon the answer. You can press Shift+Esc in Chrome (or right click the empty space at the top of the window and select Task Manager, which is how I found it) to see all of Chrome's processes and what they are for. The extra 4 I couldn't figure out for my PC?

1. The Browser itself
2. Shockwave Flash Plugin
3. Google Gears
4. Google Talk Plugin

So, looks like it works like this:

1 process for the browser.
1 process each per open tab.
1 process each per extension.
1 process each per plugin.

jojo99 · « **Reply #32 on:** April 11, 2010, 01:05 PM »

20 extensions and my FF does ok.
I trashed the useless ones and unused ones a long time ago.

The only plugins that I care about keeping up to date are,
adobe flash and Java.

And, sorry, CleanMem works.
Idling at 70,000kb to 90,000kb or so anytime I look.
More depending on how many tabs are open, about 10,000kb a tab I figure.

-cmpm (March 28, 2010, 11:27 AM)

What is this "cleanmem" thingy you mention? It's not a FF addon is it?

In FF, I have 68 extensions, 18 plug-in's and usually around 40-50 tabs open (41 right now).

I started FF about one hour ago: This is what my memory usage currently looks like.

Virtual KB       Curr = 553,808 Peak = 577,344
Working Set KB    Curr = 280,844 Peak = 371,944
Page File KB   Curr = 387,168 Peak = 426,448
System Pool KB    Paged = 231 Nonpaged = 47
Private KB       = 387,168

My total virtual memory will go over 1GB! sometime later in the day and I will have to shutdown FF and restart it.

Yes, it is [at least] one extension that is causing the problem but I don't know which one and FF does not provide any real tools for users to monitor internal memory use (and I probably wouldn't understand much of what I saw anyway, as I am not a Windows programmer).

I have tried a couple of add-on's that are supposed to help control FF memory but they don't work for me.

jojo99 · « **Reply #33 on:** April 11, 2010, 01:12 PM »

Hey folks, I use an extension called AFOM Addon, "Firefox Memory Leakage Recover Application" - I imagine the developer meant "recovery" instead of "recover". That is working well but of course that is only for the memory-hogging issue. The rest of my rants are still biting me.

Thank you.

Jim
-J-Mac (March 28, 2010, 02:51 PM)

Really?

I tested this add-in extensively and took many screen shots while going back and forth with the author. It really did nothing at all that I could determine. And earlier versions had a nasty bug where it over-wrote the application event log.

jojo99 · « **Reply #34 on:** April 11, 2010, 01:32 PM »

I just tested Trimall. I don't see anything happening at all. Which is not surprising since all these memory recovery apps tend to do is swap everything out to the pagefile. Then the memory usage looks less for short while until the pages get brought back into memory again.

Here's the few quick tests of Trimall that I just ran:

FF memory after running TrimAll

Started by    = C:\WINDOWS\Explorer.EXE
Virtual KB    Curr = 580,452 Peak = 599,740
Working Set KB    Curr = 194,380 Peak = 371,944
Page File KB    Curr = 403,116 Peak = 435,160
System Pool KB    Paged = 246 Nonpaged = 51
Private KB    = 403,116

==============
FF mem after running TwimWS

Virtual KB    Curr = 579,300 Peak = 599,740
Working Set KB    Curr = 194,284 Peak = 371,944
Page File KB    Curr = 403,292 Peak = 435,160
System Pool KB    Paged = 246 Nonpaged = 50
Private KB    = 403,292

==============
FF mem before running Trim programs:

Started by    = C:\WINDOWS\Explorer.EXE
Virtual KB    Curr = 569,684 Peak = 598,496
Working Set KB    Curr = 194,584 Peak = 371,944
Page File KB    Curr = 392,364 Peak = 435,160
System Pool KB    Paged = 245 Nonpaged = 48
Private KB    = 392,364
================

These stats from a program called TaskInfo
http://www.iarsn.com/taskinfo.html

Curt · « **Reply #35 on:** April 11, 2010, 01:51 PM »

There is something strange going on inside yo.. ehhh... ...something strange going on! Oh yes, AFOM works very well indeed. With one tab open (this page) my Firefox will use around 78 MB, up to 100 MB, but then AFOM will lower the memory usage to just 10MB, and Firefox will start building up memory usage again, and AFOM will wait a while and then do its job again... I have not cared to study how long it will wait. And oh yes, TrimAll works very well. Maybe the problem is the methods you are using, (which I really don't care to comment further on), or maybe you just didn't get the purpose of the program? When a memory leak has been recovered, the programs will at once start to build up memory usage again. To see this, you will need to watch the total memory usage of your computer, activate the TrimAll.exe, while still watching the memory usage, and you will see it. Long-term effects doesn't exist here. Just maybe we are not trying to pull your legs?

TrimAll really has very little to do with Firefox.

jojo99 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 11, 2010, 03:22 PM »

There is something strange going on inside yo.. ehhh... ...something strange going on! Oh yes, AFOM works very well indeed. With one tab open (this page) my Firefox will use around 78 MB, up to 100 MB, but then AFOM will lower the memory usage to just 10MB, and Firefox will start building up memory usage again, and AFOM will wait a while and then do its job again... I have not cared to study how long it will wait. And oh yes, TrimAll works very well. Maybe the problem is the methods you are using, (which I really don't care to comment further on), or maybe you just didn't get the purpose of the program? When a memory leak has been recovered, the programs will at once start to build up memory usage again. To see this, you will need to watch the total memory usage of your computer, activate the TrimAll.exe, while still watching the memory usage, and you will see it. Long-term effects doesn't exist here. Just maybe we are not trying to pull your legs?

TrimAll really has very little to do with Firefox.
-Curt (April 11, 2010, 01:51 PM)

There are all different kinds of memory. Are you talking about working set, swapped in, total memory or what?

I showed above that nothing happened when I ran the trim program. So unsure what it is that you are questioning?

Perhaps if you post some screenshots showing the memory reduction, we can get a better handle on what the Trim program is doing. As I previously posted, I suspect that it is doing nothing more than a total swap out which of course, will reduce the WS and in memory pages for all applications.

BUT it doesn't actually reduce memory USAGE in any way, shape or form.

f0dder · « **Reply #37 on:** April 11, 2010, 03:45 PM »

Curt, neither trimall nor AFOM fix leaks - it's nothing but temporary symptomatic treatment.

Curt · « **Reply #38 on:** April 11, 2010, 05:35 PM »

Gents! I am afraid we may be talking different languages, or is this turning into a battle on words?

jojo99; I am so sorry that I only provided a direct link to the exe instead of a link to the thread in which the file was introduced. My reason was that is was a rather lengthy thread, but now I see that you have not read it so you cannot have an idea of what it all was about:
1) https://www.donation...94.msg57870#msg57870
2) https://www.donation...94.msg58218#msg58218
3) https://www.donation...94.msg58324#msg58324

f0dder, I agree.
??

MilesAhead · « **Reply #39 on:** April 12, 2010, 01:09 AM »

hmmmmm, curiosity got the better of me so I tried Chrome for a bit. Since it seemed usable, I took it off and installed the Chrome Clone SRWare Iron

Supposedly it's Chrome without the tracking bits. I did find an AutoCopy for it. It does have some password autologin management, but doesn't support the multi-accounts on one site like Opera and Secure Login for Firefox does.

I'll say one thing though. It loads off the dime!! I got tired of running Firefox out of a Ramdisk. Took all that crap off.

Other than the substandard password management, the main thing I don't like is the Ribbon. I like the old standard menus. But I guess I have to bite the bullet because Ribbons are sexy now. I guess hunting for commands is part of the mystique or something.

The other thing I haven't tried yet that's major is bookmark sync. But it is good at pulling your settings from another browser. I siphoned the settings from Firefox and visited Twit TV and it played the vid with no intervention. I set up the bookmark toolbar by hand before I found the button to draw in the Firefox settings so I don't know if that part is automatic or not. Guess I'll find out by installing on the other machine.

The last 4 or 5 new browser I've tried I uninstalled after about an hour. This one I think I may keep. It loads too fast off the HD to just chuck it.

Curt · « **Reply #40 on:** April 12, 2010, 07:36 AM »

Thanks, Miles. Because of your post, I am trying Iron right now. Hadn't even heard of it before. But Iron really is fast - except when I am trying to understand where to find the features I am looking for! But if I recall right, I had the same problem when I first was trying out IE 8 and Office 2010 and..., so I expect I will learn how to handle this one as well ;-)

MilesAhead · « **Reply #41 on:** April 12, 2010, 11:23 AM »

Yeah, the ribbon thing is a bit annoying. But stuff that would be mostly in the File Menu on an ordinary menu bar is under the "Page" icon and Settings/Extensions type stuff is under the "Wrench" icon. The settings does seem a lot cleaner than Firefox. I just watched a video how to do Chrome bookmark sync and as I figured, it's an online google account that's used. If it let you do your own ftp site I'd like it better. I'll have to figure how to handle that. Depends how much I'll use Firefox I suppose.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #42 on:** April 12, 2010, 10:59 PM »

Searching SRWare Iron I guess there was a thread on here months ago but I never noticed it. I just tried laying on the latest Alpha. So far so good. I still haven't found a way to use the password thingy with multiple accounts on the same site. But I guess I'll just use Firefox for those sites. Just wish I could sync bookmarks etc. without using a google account.

It does seem a tad faster. Still has no setting that I can see to limit the on disk cache. But I found out where the cache is so at least I can use CCleaner to delete it and cookies.

The new version does have a "delete cookies when I close the browser" setting now.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #43 on:** April 14, 2010, 02:23 PM »

I finally found a download accelerator that will work with SRWare Iron 5 Alpha and Firefox 3.6.3

It's Internet Download Accelerator.

It does have some annoying features. Adds in the progress dialog, silly sounds, insisting on categorizing downloads unless you put them in a dated subfolder, sticking toolbars in Firefox.

But you can turn the sounds off at least. What it does without using Flashgot or any plugin(when I say without using any plugin I mean, after you remove the stuff it sticks in Firefox AddOns.. just uninstall them,) is follow redirection on downloads from AfterDawn in both Firefox and Iron.

The main annoying thing is it insists on opening a white web page telling you it's taking over the download. Evidently you have to pay up to get rid of this notification page(like when you try to disable in the settings it tells you only the Pro version lets you disable it.)

But, It's the only one I've tried so far that actually works in both browsers. All the others I had to drag a link to the drop box and that doesn't work with AfterDawn downloads or other sites that fetch with JavaScript. At least this one does. Looks like I'll run it until I find something better.

edit: Looks like it can find Iron on Vista, but not on W7.

edit2: Also it looks like this download manager free version is a lot slower than Free Download Manager. The moral I guess is, if you want speed you have to drag the link to the FDM drop box. I guess I'm going to uninstall this thing. It's too slow and annoying for what it provides.

(p.s. sorry to hijack your thread but I thought you might be interested in how Iron fares with common tasks.)

Lutz_ · « **Reply #44 on:** April 14, 2010, 07:07 PM »

I am usually using SRWare Iron and Opera myself - speed is no luxury

.
Just wanted to mention that there is now an Iron alternative in the Comodo Dragon Browser, which claims to have similar benefits as Iron. I have not tried it myself.

Tuxman · « **Reply #45 on:** April 14, 2010, 07:20 PM »

speed is no luxury .
-Lutz_ (April 14, 2010, 07:07 PM)

Indeed.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #46 on:** April 14, 2010, 08:12 PM »

I am usually using SRWare Iron and Opera myself - speed is no luxury .
Just wanted to mention that there is now an Iron alternative in the Comodo Dragon Browser, which claims to have similar benefits as Iron. I have not tried it myself.
-Lutz_ (April 14, 2010, 07:07 PM)

Thanks for the tip off.

cmpm · « **Reply #47 on:** May 22, 2010, 08:14 PM »

I have to retract my approval for CleanMem,
with windows 7 it actually slows response time for starting apps.
Even FireFox when it's minimized.

It didn't happen with XP like with W7.

Anyway, better late then never.....

MilesAhead · « **Reply #48 on:** May 22, 2010, 10:56 PM »

I am usually using SRWare Iron and Opera myself - speed is no luxury .
Just wanted to mention that there is now an Iron alternative in the Comodo Dragon Browser, which claims to have similar benefits as Iron. I have not tried it myself.
-Lutz_ (April 14, 2010, 07:07 PM)

btw if you go to the Chrome Forum:
http://www.chromeplugins.org/google/

there's a small program mentioned that claims to strip off the unique ID from your Chrome install. That way you can use the original Chrome instead of an off-shoot.

f0dder · « **Reply #49 on:** May 23, 2010, 10:15 AM »

I have to retract my approval for CleanMem,
with windows 7 it actually slows response time for starting apps.
Even FireFox when it's minimized.
-cmpm (May 22, 2010, 08:14 PM)

Well, duh - those programs have never brought along any optimization - at best, they do the same thing as Windows' internal memory cleanup routines does, at worst they pessimize your system.